Equal prize money debate (Rob Koenig and Tipsarevic agree with Gilles Simon) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Equal prize money debate (Rob Koenig and Tipsarevic agree with Gilles Simon)

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

dokigor
07-07-2004, 08:36 AM
Apologies if this has been discussed on here before, but what do people think about this? I'm a huge fan of the women's game, probably more than the men's but I just can't condone the issue of equal prize money at all for several reasons. Women don't play as many sets as the men in the majors and ticket sales suggest that people would rather watch the men's game, although that gap is narrowing I think.
Also, there is much more of a gap between the top women and those
outside the top 50, and that's why they breeze through the early
rounds in less than an hour, as opposed to the men, who are almost
always given a tough test. Anyone got any views on this? Is suppose if I
posted this on the WTA board I might get a different response

Lalitha
07-07-2004, 08:58 AM
A lot has been said on this. But I believe that it should be equal for both.

Women players work just as hard as the male compatriots do, infact women have a lot of discomfortness in many ways compared to men.

It can be argued that men's tennis is best of 5, and they play for a long time on court compared to the women. But honestly best of 5 is only at Grandslams and in the finals of TMS events. They too play best of 3 in all other tournaments. So, why not equal prize money??

CarnivalCarnage
07-07-2004, 09:30 AM
If you can prove that ticket sales suggest that, I'd really like to hear it. And don't cite those laughable Wimbledon polls the club had done. Those don't strike me as terribly scientific, and even if they were they wouldn't be very meaningful anyway.

Lalitha
07-07-2004, 09:40 AM
Not only the ticket sales, even the ticket prices are higher to men's match.

But anyway, why do you think women should not be paid equal?

CarnivalCarnage
07-07-2004, 09:42 AM
Not only the ticket sales, even the ticket prices are higher to men's match.

But anyway, why do you think women should not be paid equal?

So prove that. Show me a ticket sales breakdown. I'm not saying it isn't true, just that I'm not going to take anybody on their word.

*Ljubica*
07-07-2004, 12:27 PM
Even though I am a woman, I totally agree with Dokigor, - I have lost count of the number of early round Grand Slam matches where the likes of the Williams' sisters win their matches 6-0, 6-1 in less than an hour, while Top 10 male players have been forced into 5 setters. If I found out a colleague at my office was working less than half my hours and earning the same money I would be extremely upset and angry - this is no different. Equal pay for equal work is great - but 2 sets taking 50 minutes is in no way equal work to 5 sets taking 3 hours or more in my opinion. And I don't know about the ticket sale issue, but I do know that when I go to a Grand Slam event such as Wimbledon or Roland Garros, more fans are there for their favourite male player (whether it's Hewitt, Agassi, Federer or whoever), than seem to be there for the female matches. Most of the female matches seem to be an excuse for people to get food, walk around, buy souvenirs etc.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 12:27 PM
No

Crazy_Fool
07-07-2004, 12:31 PM
No, I've never agreed with it.

Good points there Rosie, people are just not that interested in womens tennis in comparison to mens.

sigmagirl91
07-07-2004, 12:35 PM
No, I've never agreed with it.

Good points there Rosie, people are just not that interested in womens tennis in comparison to mens.

I never was interested in women's tennis, so no.

CarnivalCarnage
07-07-2004, 01:35 PM
Even though I am a woman, I totally agree with Dokigor, - I have lost count of the number of early round Grand Slam matches where the likes of the Williams' sisters win their matches 6-0, 6-1 in less than an hour, while Top 10 male players have been forced into 5 setters. If I found out a colleague at my office was working less than half my hours and earning the same money I would be extremely upset and angry - this is no different. Equal pay for equal work is great - but 2 sets taking 50 minutes is in no way equal work to 5 sets taking 3 hours or more in my opinion. And I don't know about the ticket sale issue, but I do know that when I go to a Grand Slam event such as Wimbledon or Roland Garros, more fans are there for their favourite male player (whether it's Hewitt, Agassi, Federer or whoever), than seem to be there for the female matches. Most of the female matches seem to be an excuse for people to get food, walk around, buy souvenirs etc.

LOL. And if their work was just as valuable, would you have a case then?

Your experience at tournaments is nothing but conjecture.

And why don't you compare fair with fair? 2 sets taking 50 minutes versus 3 sets taking an hour and twenty. I didn't see much difference between the early rounds of Federer and Serena at Wimbledon this year. Or would you like to use only the extreme match lengths that suit you?

CarnivalCarnage
07-07-2004, 01:35 PM
I never was interested in women's tennis, so no.

LOL. Another classic.

CarnivalCarnage
07-07-2004, 01:37 PM
No

This is the only No vote that sounds halfway intelligent and the only reason for that is because you don't give any of the retarded excuses for discrimination.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 01:40 PM
This is the only No vote that sounds halfway intelligent and the only reason for that is because you don't give any of the retarded excuses for discrimination.

You are the commissioner for the WTA, so there is no point in me stating the reasons for why I think that, and anything can used as an excuse for discrimination.

CarnivalCarnage
07-07-2004, 01:41 PM
You are the commissioner for the WTA, so there is no point in me stating the reasons for why I think that, and anything can used as an excuse for discrimination.

Hah! I am Larry Scott, actually. How did you find out! Do you like my new ad campaign?

No really. Do tell. I would bet my life you can't cite anything that hasn't been trotted out a billion times.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 01:47 PM
Hah! I am Larry Scott, actually. How did you find out! Do you like my new ad campaign?

No really. Do tell. I would bet my life you can't cite anything that hasn't been trotted out a billion times.

It's Ok Larry I won't tell anyone.

It's an issue that I stopped long talking about, but there is a key to the amount of advertising revenue and sponsorship generated through the respective tours.

Marine
07-07-2004, 01:47 PM
NO. It would be a shame to see them having the same prize money while they win their matches 6/1 6/2 until the quarters.
In tennis, the difference between men and women is still too important in my opinion.

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 01:49 PM
Yes.

I strongly disagree with the number of sets argument. The gold medal for a women isn't smaller just because she took one more second running 100 mts that men's winner.

And about the easy matches for top-women, Roger Federer hadn't a hard work in earlier rounds at Wimby. If u truly believe what u are saying, Federer shouldn't have received all the prize money :rolleyes:

Marine
07-07-2004, 01:55 PM
At least it's in 3 winning sets.
(and it's less boring to see, just my opinion)

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 01:55 PM
NO. It would be a shame to see them having the same prize money while they win their matches 6/1 6/2 until the quarters.
In tennis, the difference between men and women is still too important in my opinion.

So Federer should receive more money for his "tough" :rolleyes: victory of Falla than Serena's easy victory over Serna.

Double-standard anyone? ;)

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 02:00 PM
At least it's in 3 winning sets.
(and it's less boring to see, just my opinion)

That's the point. Boring is something very subjetive. I admire Federer's gifts but i found him extremely boring (like Sampras). However, the rivarly between top women players is something that i enjoy deeply. But i'd never say "pay Roger less 'coz he's boring and he trashes his opponents too easily"

Marine
07-07-2004, 02:05 PM
Yes it's subjective, I precised 'just my opinion".
Time of play on the court, less.

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 02:05 PM
Get back in the kitchen.

:confused:

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 02:09 PM
Yes it's subjective, I precised 'just my opinion".
Time of play on the court, less.

ok, Marine. :cool:

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 02:10 PM
:confused:

Yes, sorry I should have used that comment with sigma actually.

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 02:15 PM
Yes, sorry I should have used that comment with sigma actually.

:cool: I shouldn't have jumped on Marine like that. But i'd like to know your points, George. Or your opinion about mine. You just said No before.

BTW, Sorry, Marine.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 02:20 PM
Yes.

If they don't want to give equal prize money, then don't make men and women play at the same time (in other words: first monday, all first round women matches, first tuesday, all first round men matches, ...). Then compare how much money men generate versus women and you can give prize money that reflects that.

I've asked many times what do some Slams gain by giving slighly less money to women.

I never got an answer.

The only thing it does is giving male players a small satisfaction for their ego.

Fact is: it hurts no one to give the same amount of money to men and women. They make enough profit that it wouldn't make a difference to them.

Experimentee
07-07-2004, 02:37 PM
Even though I am a woman, I totally agree with Dokigor, - I have lost count of the number of early round Grand Slam matches where the likes of the Williams' sisters win their matches 6-0, 6-1 in less than an hour, while Top 10 male players have been forced into 5 setters. If I found out a colleague at my office was working less than half my hours and earning the same money I would be extremely upset and angry - this is no different. Equal pay for equal work is great - but 2 sets taking 50 minutes is in no way equal work to 5 sets taking 3 hours or more in my opinion. And I don't know about the ticket sale issue, but I do know that when I go to a Grand Slam event such as Wimbledon or Roland Garros, more fans are there for their favourite male player (whether it's Hewitt, Agassi, Federer or whoever), than seem to be there for the female matches. Most of the female matches seem to be an excuse for people to get food, walk around, buy souvenirs etc.

There are 64 matches in the womens main draw of a GS, and probably only about 10 of those at the most would be finished in less than an hour.
Its all very easy for people to focus only on the top players like the Williams sisters, but they are not the only ones getting paid, there are lower ranked players who actually do play 2-3 hour matches, while Roger Federer wins his match in 54 mins and gets paid more.

Women's tennis would increase in popularity if it was publicised more, and the gap is narrowing, it just needs more time to become as popular. It also depends where the tournament is. In England obviously people would watch mens tennis more becuase their women suck in comparison, but in somewhere like Belgium, i think there would be more interest in womens tennis, so they should be paid more there.

Experimentee
07-07-2004, 02:41 PM
NO. It would be a shame to see them having the same prize money while they win their matches 6/1 6/2 until the quarters.
In tennis, the difference between men and women is still too important in my opinion.

Again, in any womens tournament, look at all the 1st round main draw matches and count how many went 6-1 6-1 or something like that. Its only a very small minority.
I could say that Popp shouldnt get his prizemoney because he beat Montanes 6-1 6-0 6-1, or Federer because he beat Falla easily in 54 mins.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 02:46 PM
Tennis is a business, an entertainment; the time spent on court is irrelevant, you can't compare this to a normal job.

Let's say Brad Pitt appear during 30 minutes in a movie, and there's a nobody appearing 1 hour in that movie.

Should the nobody be extremely upset and angry that he's working double time comparing to Pitt but is not even making as much money?

tangerine_dream
07-07-2004, 02:56 PM
First, I think the women should be playing five sets like the men. They are perfectly capable of doing so but I think it is resisted because it would pose another programming nightmare for TV stations. But if women played five sets, it would eliminate the "should women be paid the same?" argument from vexed men who see the women getting a free ride.

Second, yes, women should be paid the same as men because from what I have read about attendance numbers and ratings, the women bring in the most numbers thanks in large part to the Williams sisters. But with Sharapova now hogging the limelight and likely to surpass the Williams sisters' marketability, she will bring in much-needed attention and money to tennis, and she should reap the rewards for as much as she can get. :)

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 02:59 PM
Tangy. That is your best avatar ever :haha: :haha: :cool:

CarnivalCarnage
07-07-2004, 03:24 PM
It's Ok Larry I won't tell anyone.

It's an issue that I stopped long talking about, but there is a key to the amount of advertising revenue and sponsorship generated through the respective tours.

I could just as easily argue that corporations wish to supports men's sports as a rule out of discrimination. If they want to appeal to men (not gay men), it's unwise to promote a woman's sport. The way of the world. The opposite is not true. Or I could point to the massive endorsement deals of Venus and Serena Williams which dwarf those of any male player including Agassi. I could say that Venus, Serena, Jennifer and Anna are more famous than anybody active on the men's tour except Agassi. I don't think folks would deny that. But then they'd turn around and say more people wish to watch the men's tour. Uh huh.

But this is an issue of Slams. When they converge. That is what confuses me. The ATP may have a deal with whoever to give their TMS events TV time. So what? What does that matter at the majors? I guess I need you to explain further. Sorta vague, don't you think?

CarnivalCarnage
07-07-2004, 03:26 PM
And don't say Anna is not active. ;)

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 03:34 PM
I could just as easily argue that corporations wish to supports men's sports as a rule out of discrimination. If they want to appeal to men (not gay men), it's unwise to promote a woman's sport. The way of the world. The opposite is not true. Or I could point to the massive endorsement deals of Venus and Serena Williams which dwarf those of any male player including Agassi. I could say that Venus, Serena, Jennifer and Anna are more famous than anybody active on the men's tour except Agassi. I don't think folks would deny that. But then they'd turn around and say more people wish to watch the men's tour. Uh huh.

But this is an issue of Slams. When they converge. That is what confuses me. The ATP may have a deal with whoever to give their TMS events TV time. So what? What does that matter at the majors? I guess I need you to explain further. Sorta vague, don't you think?

You are a smart person you can figure it out for yourself. Think about it like this, if the men and the ATP generate more money through advertising, TV rights, sponsorships for the tournaments, than the WTA, and not talking about individuals. You are looking at individuals, when it's the whole tours that need to be looked at. This will spill over to the Slams as well, how come the ATP can usually do well at their end of season event and by moving to different venues, when the women can't. It's not a quality of play issue.

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 03:35 PM
It's Ok Larry I won't tell anyone.

It's an issue that I stopped long talking about, but there is a key to the amount of advertising revenue and sponsorship generated through the respective tours.

I hadn't seen this. Interesting, GWH, thanks. I'm trying to imagine a GS without women's event and then without men. It would be interesting. One could easily say men carry more momentum but it has to be tested.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 03:41 PM
Think about it like this, if the men and the ATP generate more money through advertising, TV rights, sponsorships for the tournaments, than the WTA, and not talking about individuals. You are looking at individuals, when it's the whole tours that need to be looked at. This will spill over to the Slams as well, how come the ATP can usually do well at their end of season event and by moving to different venues, when the women can't. It's not a quality of play issue.

Like CC said, it's only conjectures.

You have no way to know if men generate more than women at Slams basing yourself on that.

Should we give less money to women simply based on conjectures? Wouldn't it be more fair to simply give the same equal amount of money to men and women?

Answer this question: what do they gain by giving less to women? If the US Open can do it, others Slam can, they have the money.

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 03:43 PM
Out of GS, i think the failure of women's masters at L.A. it's about lack of american players with a shot at no. 1 position. I think they were doing well at Madison Square Garden (not so sure). And Before Lisboa (Guga ;) ), Sidney (Hewitt ;) ) And Shangai (hungry China middle class ;) ), i would like to know numbers about Men's championships.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 03:49 PM
Like CC said, it's only conjectures.

You have no way to know if men generate more than women at Slams basing yourself on that.

Can you prove it as wrong? How do you know that I don't have access to those figures? If I had, I wouldn't be stating this, irrespective of what you say, this is not just only a problem for tennis, this happens in golf, it happens in football, two examples of global sports where the overall revenue is predominantely generated by the male athletes, and therefore they receive a higher share of the prizemoney, and with a better marketing the WTA doesn't generate the same amount of money, women's sport is harder to market, quality wise and not just using sex.


Answer this question: what do they gain by giving less to women? If the US Open can do it, others Slam can, they have the money

What do they gain by giving them the same money? The French Open and Wimbledon don't do it, and if there were good enough reasons to do so, that could be argued and backed up with, then they would more likely to act.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 03:55 PM
Out of GS, i think the failure of women's masters at L.A. it's about lack of american players with a shot at no. 1 position. I think they were doing well at Madison Square Garden (not so sure). And Before Lisboa (Guga ;) ), Sidney (Hewitt ;) ) And Shangai (hungry China middle class ;) ), i would like to know numbers about Men's championships.

Actually, even no matter how well they did at MSG, it's still not as good as the other ones. Australians will watch sport. Well Lisbon and China don't get top class sport often, and that being the case, the people will flock to see it.

The IS series events are of overall better quality than the equivalent of the WTA.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 03:55 PM
Can you prove it as wrong? How do you know that I don't have access to those figures, irrespective of what you say, this is not just for tennis, this happens in golf, it happens in football, two examples of global sports where the overall revenue is predominantetly generated by the male athletes, and therefore they receive a higher share of the prizemoney.

No, I can't prove it as wrong, which is why I think the fair and simple solution is equal prize money.

And I don't follow golf and football at all, do men and women play at the same time at the same place like for tennis?

Like I said, if Slam tournements would be separate tournements for men and women, THEN I would agree to give them different prize money depending of the amount of money they generate.

What do they gain by giving them the same money? The French Open and Wimbledon don't do it, and if there were good enough reasons to do so, that could be argued and backed up with, then they would more likely to act.

What do they gain by giving them the same money? Because it's simple, fair, and it shows respect to women in general.

Experimentee
07-07-2004, 04:03 PM
Can you prove it as wrong? How do you know that I don't have access to those figures? If I had, I wouldn't be stating this, irrespective of what you say, this is not just only a problem for tennis, this happens in golf, it happens in football, two examples of global sports where the overall revenue is predominantely generated by the male athletes, and therefore they receive a higher share of the prizemoney, and with a better marketing the WTA doesn't generate the same amount of money, women's sport is harder to market, quality wise and not just using sex.

What do they gain by giving them the same money? The French Open and Wimbledon don't do it, and if there were good enough reasons to do so, that could be argued and backed up with, then they would more likely to act.

You cant use golf and football as examples, because womens golf and womens football is nowhere near as popular as womens tennis. Tennis is one of the most popular women's sports in the world.
By giving equal prizemoney they gain more respect from the fans and the players.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 04:06 PM
No, I can't prove it as wrong, which is why I think the fair and simple solution is equal prize money.

Nothing is ever that black and white unfortunately.

And I don't follow golf and football at all, do men and women play at the same time at the same place like for tennis?

Well they have had women competing in male events in golf this year, some of the masses didn't appreciate it. Just because they play at the same venue, doesn't mean there are not differences between what they bring, and if the women bring so much money into the sport, more than men, then they deserve to be paid more, but this is women's sport, it doesn't happen like that unfortunately.

Like I said, if Slam tournements would be separate tournements for men and women, THEN I would agree to give them different prize money depending of the amount of money they generate.

If the ATP threatened to boycott a Slam, it would look stupid to them, but the women would not be able to carry the event by themselves.

What do they gain by giving them the same money? Because it's simple, fair, and it shows respect to women in general

Tokenism, in any way is poor form and for those reasons you stated, it would be act of tokenism.

Marine
07-07-2004, 04:13 PM
"Tennis is one of the most popular women's sports in the world. "

I agree, but not for good reasons (it's popular thanks to off tennis's side..the bimbos in mini short, mini dress, the melo dramaric stories of some players...)

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 04:15 PM
Just because they play at the same venue, doesn't mean there are not differences between what they bring

The point is that extremely difficult to judge how much they each generate when they play at the same venue.

If the ATP threatened to boycott a Slam, it would look stupid to them, but the women would not be able to carry the event by themselves.

Maybe, maybe not. You can't prove it.

And there's a difference between fairness and tokenism.

I'm trying to find one negative aspect to equal price money, I don't find one. Being fair and equal can only be positive for our society.

Experimentee
07-07-2004, 04:20 PM
"Tennis is one of the most popular women's sports in the world. "

I agree, but not for good reasons (it's popular thanks to off tennis's side..the bimbos in mini short, mini dress, the melo dramaric stories of some players...)

It doesnt matter what its popular for, the point is that it can bring as much money as the mens side.

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 04:21 PM
Marine, Did u see Serena vs. Amelie at Wimby? or Sharapova vs. Sugiyama, Sharapova vs. Davenport? Do you remember Hingis vs. Capriati at 2002 AO Final?. Hingis vs. Graf at 1999 Roland Garros final? That wasn't about Hingis' butt, Graf's boops or Capriati mini-skirt. That wasn't a bad soap opera or a crappy reality. That was good tennis, emotion and intensity. That was real drama.

jtipson
07-07-2004, 04:24 PM
I think this is a non-issue. After all, the differences are not big even at the top level, and most of the players getting the big money would hardly notice the difference.

More important is better distribution of prize money that's available so that the lower ranked players don't have to struggle so much.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 04:25 PM
The point is that extremely difficult to judge how much they each generate when they play at the same venue.

Maybe, maybe not. You can't prove it.

They can't carry an end of season championship which does not get the same amount of coverage as the ATP, when their best players are there. So how could they carry a Slam event?

And there's a difference between fairness and tokenism.

Is there ? Just giving something for nothing is not fairness, it's tokenism. Example, we are following equal opportunity policy by giving 1 or 2 people positions because they are of a special group is tokenism, and not fairness though in theory they are meeting the guidelines.

I'm trying to find one negative aspect to equal price money, I don't find one. Being fair and equal can only be positive for our society

Try communism, that was great in theory. So it's ok to reward a product with the same money that overall isn't as good and doesn't generate the same amount of money. Find me an example of a women's sport that competes with the men, that generates more overall cash?

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 04:26 PM
I think this is a non-issue. After all, the differences are not big even at the top level, and most of the players getting the big money would hardly notice the difference.

More important is better distribution of prize money that's available so that the lower ranked players don't have to struggle so much.

It's about 80% isn't it?

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 04:26 PM
I would love to know Wimby and RG stats about ratings and asistance. It could be an easy poll.

Did you came here to see :

1 Singles or Doubles
2. Men or Women
3. Tennis or Tennis's bodies
4. Only a tennis player. Who?

anymore pics, i mean, questions ?

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 04:28 PM
After all, the differences are not big even at the top level.

It's what I find so irritating... The difference is so small that it's absurd to not give equal prize money.

And I know it doesn't prove much, but just an example: rating for US television finals: Sharapova vs Williams 3.9; Roddick against Federer 3.6.

I don't know for the rest of the world, but for the finals in the USA, women often get better ratings than men, for the most important match of the tournement.

Again I know it doesn't prove much, but it does show that womens tennis is very popular sport, and that asking for equal prize money is not asking for too much.

Marine
07-07-2004, 04:29 PM
Marine, Did u see Serena vs. Amelie at Wimby? or Sharapova vs. Sugiyama, Sharapova vs. Davenport? Do you remember Hingis vs. Capriati at 2002 AO Final?. Hingis vs. Graf at 1999 Roland Garros final? That wasn't about Hingis' butt, Graf's boops or Capriati mini-skirt. That wasn't a bad soap opera or a crappy reality. That was good tennis, emotion and intensity. That was real drama.

I saw some of them, some great matches, I admit, but... you quote semis and finals !!!! That's the problem of women's tennis.

jtipson
07-07-2004, 04:33 PM
It's about 80% isn't it?

It's as high as 93% in fact (Ģ602,500 to Ģ560,500 in 2004 and Ģ575,000 to Ģ535,000 in 2003). So there's not much difference at all.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 04:34 PM
They can't carry an end of season championship which does not get the same amount of coverage as the ATP, when their best players are there. So how could they carry a Slam event?

The end of the season Championship do not have the prestige or the importance a Slam have, you can't compare both.

Is there ? Just giving something for nothing is not fairness, it's tokenism. Example, we are following equal opportunity policy by giving 1 or 2 people positions because they are of a special group is tokenism, and not fairness though in theory they are meeting the guidelines.

Giving something for nothing? It's not for nothing, there is a possibility that women generate as much money as men for Slam (or even more), in all respect to that possibility, I personnaly find it more fair to give equal prize money.

Try communism, that was great in theory. So it's ok to reward a product with the same money that overall isn't as good and doesn't generate the same amount of money. Find me an example of a women's sport that competes with the men, that generates more overall cash?

I don't care about other women's sport, we're talking about tennis.

In business, it does NOT matter if the product overall isn't as good, it's only about how much money it generates. Unless you can prove that men generate more money than women for Slams, then you have a point. You haven't prove it in numbers that they generate more money than women.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 04:36 PM
It's as high as 93% in fact (Ģ602,500 to Ģ560,500 in 2004 and Ģ575,000 to Ģ535,000 in 2003). So there's not much difference at all.

Thanks for that and it's minimal difference. As I said in my first post, it's something I don't care about, unless Rios or one of the guys makes a troll like comment for the media, and people pick up on it, and it's a laugh.

jtipson
07-07-2004, 04:38 PM
It's what I find so irritating... The difference is so small that it's absurd to not give equal prize money.

And I know it doesn't prove much, but just an example: rating for US television finals: Sharapova vs Williams 3.9; Roddick against Federer 3.6.

I don't know for the rest of the world, but for the finals in the USA, women often get better ratings than men, for the most important match of the tournement.

Again I know it doesn't prove much, but it does show that womens tennis is very popular sport, and that asking for equal prize money is not asking for too much.

I don't have the data to back it up, but I think outside of America men's tennis is rather more popular than women's. From my personal point of view, I went to Wimbledon on 3 days this year, and was only interested in seeing the men (although I admit I sat through a Serena match).

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 04:41 PM
In business, it does NOT matter if the product overall isn't as good, it's only about how much money it generates. Unless you can prove that men generate more money than women for Slams, then you have a point. You haven't prove it in numbers that they generate more money than women.

Very simply, there is not a women's sport that generates more money than men's when it's competing for marketshare and that includes tennis. If that's the case why does the ATP have an overall higher prizemoney than the WTA. The Slams might be run by the ITF, but they still have to attract these corporate scumbags to sponsor these events. You can't prove otherwise and at the same time, if there was an exception to the cases, then it would be known about, and the advocates would use this is an example to further their case.

Go the tokenism.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 04:43 PM
I don't have the data to back it up, but I think outside of America men's tennis is rather more popular than women's. From my personal point of view, I went to Wimbledon on 3 days this year, and was only interested in seeing the men (although I admit I sat through a Serena match).

I agree I have been to events as well, and in Australia and most nations within Europe it's the same.

Marine
07-07-2004, 04:48 PM
but I think outside of America men's tennis is rather more popular than women's. From my personal point of view, I went to Wimbledon on 3 days this year, and was only interested in seeing the men (although I admit I sat through a Serena match).

I agree.
In RG it's the same. on the centre court, there are 4 matches every day with 2 men's matches, 2 women's matche, I use to go to RG every year (this year, 3 days), and it's always the same scenario... people who are on the centre court take advantage of women's matches for going watch other matches on small courts. Poeple joke " I come back in 1 small hour, when it will be finished..".

Marine
07-07-2004, 04:51 PM
ughh... :unsure: excuse all my faults in the last post.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 04:51 PM
I agree.
In RG it's the same. on the centre court, there are 4 matches every day with 2 men's matches, 2 women's matche, I use to go to RG every year (this year, 3 days), and it's always the same scenario... people who are on the centre court take advantage of women's matches for going watch other matches on small courts. Poeple joke " I come back in 1 small hour, when it will be finished..".

I see nothing has changed then. It was the same when I was at a lead up tournament in Sydney, there were about 40 at a practice session, and there was a women's match 2 courts down and there were about 10 people including ballboys.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 04:55 PM
If mens tennis would be significantly more popular than womens tennis during Slams, then it would be a case of tokenism.

However, both events are extremely popular during Slams. Womens matches get better ratings for some important markets. There are no empty seats for 1/2F and F womens matches. There's a lot of people watching first round womens matches.

I simply do NOT find fair to give less money to women simply based on conjectures and deductions that could be wrong.

Besides, just a my personal theory, if the French and Wimbledon give less money to women, is it really because men generate more money than women? I personaly think it's their way to make a statement that they consider womens tennis inferior to mens tennis. If womens tennis would generate more money than men, they wouldn't give them more money.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 04:59 PM
ughh... :unsure: excuse all my faults in the last post.

Don't worry your English, is so much better than my French.

amethyst
07-07-2004, 05:00 PM
What if one day womenīs tennis was more popular then menīs tennis, had higher TV ratings or if the women played longer (or at least closer) matches than men? Should men get less prize money than women in that case? I doubt if all the posters who argued against equal prize money would agree with that.

jtipson
07-07-2004, 05:02 PM
Besides, just a my personal theory, if the French and Wimbledon give less money to women, is it really because men generate more money than women? I personaly think it's their way to make a statement that they consider womens tennis inferior to mens tennis. If womens tennis would generate more money than men, they wouldn't give them more money.

They do it because they have always done it, and they don't see a good reason to change it. It's not like it used to be equal and they've decided to reduce it.

On the other hand, maybe Europeans *do* think women's tennis is inferior to men's, and I'd admit to that myself ;)

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 05:05 PM
If mens tennis would be significantly more popular than womens tennis during Slams, then it would be a case of tokenism.

Well try going to a Slam and seeing which early round matches have more people the majority of the time it's the men. Finals tickets are always sold out before, but whether they all turn up is another story.

However, both events are extremely popular during Slams. Womens matches get better ratings for some important markets. There are no empty seats for 1/2F and F womens matches. There's a lot of people watching first round womens matches

You mean of course the USA is the world, then again there are some people that think tennis is boring, because an American is not number 1.

Ok, some news for you. In the mid 90s the French Open had only QFs for women played on one day, the experiment stunk and it failed miserably, as the matches weren't great and there were plenty of empty seats.

Then the next year, because of rain, they played them all on the second show court, and the men's QFS were played on Centre Court, there weren't many complaints from the fans. They can't do that anymore there, and now they play 2 mens QF's on the same day as well, to give it better balance.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 05:08 PM
What if one day womenīs tennis was more popular then menīs tennis, had higher TV ratings or if the women played longer (or at least closer) matches than men? Should men get less prize money than women in that case? I doubt if all the posters who argued against equal prize money would agree with that.

It won't happen, that's funny. They won't play longer and if they can generate more TV revenue and sponsorship, good for them, but I don't see it happening.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 05:10 PM
Mid 90'?

We're in 2004. The popularity of womens tennis has increased a lot since the last 7 years.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 05:11 PM
It won't happen.

Fact is, if it would happen, I don't see the FO or Wimbledon giving more money to women than men.

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 05:12 PM
Mid 90'?

We're in 2004. The popularity of womens tennis has increased a lot since the last 7 years.

Try reading the whole context of the sentence, and then you might get it. Especially the bit about why they added 2 mens quarter finals.

*Ljubica*
07-07-2004, 05:29 PM
[QUOTE=CarnivalCarnage]

Your experience at tournaments is nothing but conjecture.

One question? As I travel extensively on the tennis circuit for 5-6 months of the year, and go to a large number of tournaments, I wonder how you justify your comment that my "experience at tournaments is nothing but conjecture". In fact last year at Wimbledon a couple of very bored student friends of mine "canvassed" the overnight queues at Wimbledon just to see which players people were going to such lengths to watch - and no female players came out in their Top 5. If you are interested, the Top 5 (in no particular order!), were Agassi, Henman, Hewitt, Federer and Kuerten! I have also had similar conversations at Roland Garros, and vividly remember an occasion last year on Phillippe Chatrier Court, where the packed stadium emptied after a mens' match, and Serena Williams v Barbara Schett was played in front of an almost empty stadium, before people started to trickle back in for the start of the mens' singles that followed.

I do accept that womens' tennis may be more popular in the States due to the success of the Williams' sisters, Capriati etc, but you only have to see the empty stadiums at European womens' tournaments shown here on TV to see that this is not the case in many other parts of the world.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 05:32 PM
So if after your extensive experiences, you would have concluded that womens tennis is more popular, you would think they should make more money than men at Slams?

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 05:36 PM
So if after your extensive experiences, you would have concluded that womens tennis is more popular, you would think they should make more money than men at Slams?

Read closely and again, what she is saying is that women's tennis may be more popular in the USA, but that is not representative of the rest of the world, remember the USA is not the world.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 05:41 PM
Read closely and again, what she is saying is that women's tennis may be more popular in the USA, but that is not representative of the rest of the world, remember the USA is not the world.

Maybe you should read more closely my reply?

Action Jackson
07-07-2004, 05:43 PM
Maybe you should read more closely my reply?

Did you misword that reply on purpose?

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 05:48 PM
I am remember when I went to the Italian Open, they had the women's event and the crowd couldn't be bothered with the event really, then when they had the men's event starting there were more interested in the 1st round than the latter rounds of the women's events.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 05:48 PM
So if after your extensive experiences, you would have concluded that womens tennis is more popular, you would think they should make more money than men at Slams?

What are you trying to say here?

Ballbuster
07-07-2004, 05:56 PM
Question: does this refer to prize money at the Grand Slams only?
There are large differences in prize money at Indian Wells and Miami but the AtP is separate from the WTA so that's why it isn't equal. Also you can notice the prize money at a women's tier 1 is far below a mens TMS as well as a women's tier V being much lower than a men's event with 35 race points for the winner.

When I watch international events I do notice the stadium's being more empty for women's tennis.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 05:58 PM
What are you trying to say here?

Maybe it wasn't clear :confused:

I just want to know if people would agree to give more money to women if there would come a point we would be able to prove that they generate more money than men.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 06:00 PM
When I watch international events I do notice the stadium's being more empty for women's tennis.

For the majority of time, that is not an illusion.

Jtipson, Rosie, GWH made some very good points. It refers to the Slams, but even though the 2 tours are seperate, the mechanisms for getting sponsors are the same, and I know some people who think the FO and Wimbledon are too generous.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 06:02 PM
Observing crowds have limitations. Let's say a Capriati fans only buy a ticket to watch Capriati... Even if he watches mens matches the rest of the time, it doesn't change the fact that he wouldn't have buy a ticket if Capriati wouldn't have played.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 06:06 PM
For the majority of time, that is not an illusion.

Jtipson, Rosie, GWH made some very good points. It refers to the Slams, but even though the 2 tours are seperate, the mechanisms for getting sponsors are the same, and I know some people who think the FO and Wimbledon are too generous.

I prefer them to be "too generous" instead of not being generous enough. It doesn't harm anyone to give women a generous amount of money, when we consider it's quite a popular sport.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 06:09 PM
Maybe it wasn't clear :confused:

I just want to know if people would agree to give more money to women if there would come a point we would be able to prove that they generate more money than men.

That was already asked earlier, but I can safely say that within myself, that I don't see that scenario happening it all, it would at least 4 or 5 generational shifts. If there was a levelling out between them, then good, but that still needs a long way to go and in addition they still won't generate more money than the men, if somehow it happened, their base of negotiation would be stronger.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 06:09 PM
That was already asked earlier, but I can safely say that within myself, that I don't see that scenario happening it all, it would at least 4 or 5 generational shifts. If there was a levelling out between them, then good, but that still needs a long way to go and in addition they still won't generate more money than the men, if somehow it happened, their base of negotiation would be stronger.

You didn't answer my question.

amethyst
07-07-2004, 06:14 PM
It won't happen, that's funny. They won't play longer and if they can generate more TV revenue and sponsorship, good for them, but I don't see it happening.

Just because you donīt see it happen, itīs not impossible. Ok, women wonīt play longer than men, but it their matches might be closer and the menīs more lopsided than today. And you havenīt answered my question if you would support less price money for men if that happened.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 06:26 PM
You didn't answer my question.

The last sentence gives the answer away.

Ballbuster
07-07-2004, 06:28 PM
speaking about the fan bases for men's and women's bases. It seems to me like that there are a lot more posters on wtaworld than there are here??? something to think about

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 06:28 PM
The last sentence gives the answer away.

Not at all, you just said their base of negotiation would be stronger; it doesn't much about your opinion.

shaoyu
07-07-2004, 06:31 PM
I think it is more fair to use the prize money ratio of non-combined ATP and WTA events as the ratio to divide prize money at combined events and slams. But I suspect the gap is going to be even bigger than what Wimbledon & Roland Garros currently give. Why can't these women's right proponents handled the fact that better players should earn more? Why cry out loud against a profession where men have born advantage over women instead of finding something women can excel more than men do and earn there?

Actually I think women's tennis do have its own advantage - namely aesthetical appeal. But unfortunately playing beautiful style does not equal match success.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 06:33 PM
speaking about the fan bases for men's and women's bases. It seems to me like that there are a lot more posters on wtaworld than there are here??? something to think about

How many more guys have raging hormones?

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 06:35 PM
The fact that men are better than women is totally irrelevant.

We have 2 choices: equal prize money. Or a slighly different prize money for men and women. I find the second option completely absurd; the first one is very simple and respectful for women.

Anyway I'm done with this, we have our opinion, it looks like we're not going to change it, so I'm moving on with another discussion.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 06:35 PM
Not at all, you just said their base of negotiation would be stronger; it doesn't much about your opinion.

Just for you lol, if they achived that then they would be in a much better position to argue their point of view. I highly doubt that they will achieve this, if they do, that's fine, but I don't like hypothetical questions.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 06:37 PM
Just for you lol, if they achived that then they would be in a much better position to argue their point of view. I highly doubt that they will achieve this, if they do, that's fine, but I don't like hypothetical questions.

That you and others don't want to answer that hypothetical question does say a lot.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 06:44 PM
That you and others don't want to answer that hypothetical question does say a lot.

It says I prefer in dealing with reality, and that situation you presented is not reality or close to happening in the near future.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 06:48 PM
It says I prefer in dealing with reality, and that situation you presented is not reality or close to happening in the near future.

It's not the reality so what?

The only answer possible (according to the logic of the thread) was "yes"? How is it so hard to answer?

People say men should make more because they think they generate more money.

Isn't it normal to ask if people would use the same logic for women?

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 06:51 PM
It's not the reality so what?

The only answer possible (according to the logic of the thread) was "yes"? How is it so hard to answer?

People say men should make more because they think they generate more money.

Isn't it normal to ask if people would use the same logic for women?

Why ask a question, when the answer is obvious, it's not a realistic question and until such time circumstances change then the previous answer won't change at all.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 06:54 PM
Why ask a question, when the answer is obvious, it's not a realistic question and until such time circumstances change then the previous answer won't change at all.

Who cares if it's not realistic? It doesn't matter whether it's realistic or not.

And it's obvious why I ask the question, it's to see whether there is a double standard or not in some people opinion.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 06:57 PM
Who cares if it's not realistic? It doesn't matter whether it's realistic or not.

And it's obvious why I ask the question, it's to see whether there is a double standard or not in some people opinion.

It's easier to catch out double standards, when both situations are either current or the same thing has happened to two different people previously. Hypotheticals don't prove a thing, as a person doesn't know, how they will react in a particular situation if they have never experienced it.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 07:06 PM
It's easier to catch out double standards, when both situations are either current or the same thing has happened to two different people previously. Hypotheticals don't prove a thing, as a person doesn't know, how they will react in a particular situation if they have never experienced it.

The situation is exactly the same. :shrug: All you have to do is replacing the "men" word by "women" and the "women" word by "men".

People observe that there are bigger crowd for mens matches, that it's more popular and it generates more $$$. And they take the conclusion there shouldn't be equal prize money.

All I'm saying is, using exactly the same logic, if there would be bigger crowd for womens matches, that it's more popular and that it generates more $$$, would you ALSO think they shouldn't be equal prize money (ie that women should get more).

You don't want to answer, fine. I might be wrong, but I'm suspecting a double standard.

amethyst
07-07-2004, 07:07 PM
That you and others don't want to answer that hypothetical question does say a lot.

I completely agree with Andy here! We speculate on these board over everything and suddenly people donīt want to answer a hypothetical question. I think they avoid answering it because they donīt want to admit they wouldnīt accept less prize money for men if the situation changed.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 07:10 PM
The situation is exactly the same. :shrug: All you have to do is replacing the "men" word by "women" and the "women" word by "men".

People observe that there are bigger crowd for mens matches, that it's more popular and it generates more $$$. And they take the conclusion there shouldn't be equal prize money.

All I'm saying is, using exactly the same logic, if there would be bigger crowd for womens matches, that it's more popular and that it generates more $$$, would you ALSO think they shouldn't be equal prize money (ie that women should get more).

You don't want to answer, fine. I might be wrong, but I'm suspecting a double standard.

I have already answered this question twice even, and what are you not getting. I said it's not realistic and if it becomes a realistic situation, ( not likely), then the question is more apt. Just for you I said if all these things happened, then it would be fine a while ago, and nothing has changed since then. I sense you are seeing what you want to see.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 07:12 PM
I completely agree with Andy here! We speculate on these board over everything and suddenly people donīt want to answer a hypothetical question. I think they avoid answering it because they donīt want to admit they wouldnīt accept less prize money for men if the situation changed.

Cause I am a decent person. Previously I said if all these things happened, then it would be fine a while ago, and nothing has changed since then. I sense you are seeing what you want to see.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 07:14 PM
I think they avoid answering it because they donīt want to admit they wouldnīt accept less prize money for men if the situation changed.

Please come back to me, if the situation ever changed in the tennis kingdom relating to this.

Chloe le Bopper
07-07-2004, 07:26 PM
I agree with Andy This Andy That on the majority of his arguements... if the women and mens slam events were held separately, and there was actually solid evidence to support that the mens slam event was significantly more successful... then I would understand the women not making as much as them. As it is now, the "men draw more spectators" vs "the women draw more spectators" arguements seem to be little more than idle speculation based on personal preference.

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 07:38 PM
When Roland Garros and Wimbledon show the numbers about their decisions, we'll see. Until then, it's unfair what they're doing.

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 07:43 PM
Just for you I said if all these things happened, then it would be fine a while ago, and nothing has changed since then.

Ok thanks for your answer.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-07-2004, 07:46 PM
When Roland Garros and Wimbledon show the numbers about their decisions, we'll see. Until then, it's unfair what they're doing.

Roland Garros is 96 % of men's draw. Women players do not draw as many spectators or viewers, through TV and gates, one can look at the respective tours for that, therefore, the revenue they generate is not as great, and their earnings should reflect this.

Marine
07-07-2004, 08:06 PM
ANYWAY, my final opinion is that these players, men/women are too much paid !!!
The shame is not to give more money to men than to women, it's to give too much money to both... (a 6% increase in the singles prize money in RG is just unfair, and the big increase in the tickets too... :mad: )

(50€ to see 2 womens matches on the centre court...it's a shame :tape: )

Chloe le Bopper
07-07-2004, 08:11 PM
Who else are they supposed to give all the money to? I suppose that filtering more of it into grassroots programs would be appropriate... other than that, I don't see who else should be getting any more of a cut :confused:

SanTaureau Fan
07-07-2004, 08:15 PM
Actually, they aren't really paid that much if you look at all the money each Slams makes each year.

And comparing to other sports, I always thought tennis tickets are cheap. For 40 or 50 bucks, you can watch 7 hours of action... That's only 6 or 7$/hour.

alfonsojose
07-07-2004, 08:46 PM
Roland Garros is 96 % of men's draw. Women players do not draw as many spectators or viewers, through TV and gates, one can look at the respective tours for that, therefore, the revenue they generate is not as great, and their earnings should reflect this.


1. Where Did u get that number? FFT ?
2. What does it mean? 96% of the benefits?
3. Sorry but i don't buy that. If that number was right, there wouldn't be women's tournament. Or you're telling us men's tennis is the best businness ever and you can waste half of time, courts, money for ball boys, and still you got benefits :rolleyes: . Even the biggest feminist in this world will not support the women's tournament if that number would be correct

YoursTruly
07-07-2004, 09:04 PM
I think that technically it's equal, because both sides have a lot of good points, so that itself shows that both are complainers. I think they should just make the money equal so that they could all shut up.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 04:03 AM
"They can't carry an end of season championship which does not get the same amount of coverage as the ATP, when their best players are there. So how could they carry a Slam event?"

The two years in LA never could make the claim to have all their best players there. ;)

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 04:10 AM
I see nothing has changed then. It was the same when I was at a lead up tournament in Sydney, there were about 40 at a practice session, and there was a women's match 2 courts down and there were about 10 people including ballboys.

John McEnroe has lamented the exact opposite. More people watching Hingis or someone practice than a lower level men's match going on at the same time.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 04:15 AM
They do it because they have always done it, and they don't see a good reason to change it. It's not like it used to be equal and they've decided to reduce it.

That might be true of the French Open and Wimbledon, but the Australian did that exact thing. They made it equal, took it away, promised to level it again, hedged, and then finally did it. Infer what you might into that.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 04:17 AM
It won't happen, that's funny. They won't play longer and if they can generate more TV revenue and sponsorship, good for them, but I don't see it happening.

You dodged the question. Doesn't matter whether you think it will happen or has happened. But should it, a hypothetical, would the men deserve less prize money?

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 04:19 AM
[QUOTE=CarnivalCarnage]

Your experience at tournaments is nothing but conjecture.

One question? As I travel extensively on the tennis circuit for 5-6 months of the year, and go to a large number of tournaments, I wonder how you justify your comment that my "experience at tournaments is nothing but conjecture". In fact last year at Wimbledon a couple of very bored student friends of mine "canvassed" the overnight queues at Wimbledon just to see which players people were going to such lengths to watch - and no female players came out in their Top 5. If you are interested, the Top 5 (in no particular order!), were Agassi, Henman, Hewitt, Federer and Kuerten! I have also had similar conversations at Roland Garros, and vividly remember an occasion last year on Phillippe Chatrier Court, where the packed stadium emptied after a mens' match, and Serena Williams v Barbara Schett was played in front of an almost empty stadium, before people started to trickle back in for the start of the mens' singles that followed.

I do accept that womens' tennis may be more popular in the States due to the success of the Williams' sisters, Capriati etc, but you only have to see the empty stadiums at European womens' tournaments shown here on TV to see that this is not the case in many other parts of the world.

So like I said, conjecture.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 04:21 AM
I think it is more fair to use the prize money ratio of non-combined ATP and WTA events as the ratio to divide prize money at combined events and slams. But I suspect the gap is going to be even bigger than what Wimbledon & Roland Garros currently give. Why can't these women's right proponents handled the fact that better players should earn more? Why cry out loud against a profession where men have born advantage over women instead of finding something women can excel more than men do and earn there?

Actually I think women's tennis do have its own advantage - namely aesthetical appeal. But unfortunately playing beautiful style does not equal match success.

Why can't you understand that it has nothing to do with quality of play?

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 04:23 AM
How many more guys have raging hormones?

LOL. Dude, all the guys on WTAworld are gay. Same with a lot that come here. If there is a site benefiting from sex appeal, it's this one, trust me.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 04:24 AM
That you and others don't want to answer that hypothetical question does say a lot.

Yes it sure does.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 04:25 AM
It's easier to catch out double standards, when both situations are either current or the same thing has happened to two different people previously. Hypotheticals don't prove a thing, as a person doesn't know, how they will react in a particular situation if they have never experienced it.

Your rant against hypotheticals is pretty funny. Likely the least intellectual thing said in this thread.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 04:28 AM
I think that technically it's equal, because both sides have a lot of good points, so that itself shows that both are complainers. I think they should just make the money equal so that they could all shut up.

If you think making it equal would make both sides shut up, you've stumbled into the wrong discussion.

*Ljubica*
07-08-2004, 05:28 AM
So like I said, conjecture.

No - the meaning of "conjecture" is "(the forming of) a guess about something based on how it seems and not on proof" , - so like I said - "fact". :)

Smankyou
07-08-2004, 05:32 AM
Boo. This topic has been done to death.

The day the women start drawing crowds, advertising and tv air time like the men do, is the day they can receive equal pay.

And it's not like either of the sexes are roughing it out. They should be grateful for what they receive.

Lalitha
07-08-2004, 06:11 AM
Any one, who say that Women should not be paid equal, please give your reasons for that.

Action Jackson
07-08-2004, 06:35 AM
Your rant against hypotheticals is pretty funny. Likely the least intellectual thing said in this thread.

No less intellectual than many of the points here. How much are they paying for the WTA job? :)

Ok, just look at the respective ATP and WTA tours. It's obvious which one generates more money and has a higher global interest.

When the day the WTA attracts the same level of sponsorship, TV revenue, and consistently fills stadia and their tournaments pay virtually as much as the ATP events, then they are entitled to equal prize money at the Slams.

The Slams are influenced by both the ATP and WTA, it was the WTA that helped get the women more money at Wimbledon.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 10:34 AM
No - the meaning of "conjecture" is "(the forming of) a guess about something based on how it seems and not on proof" , - so like I said - "fact". :)

So like I said, conjecture.

I mean, Rosie, you based your statements on what you experienced. There are no cold hard facts there. That is, as you so helpfully pointed out, the definition of conjecture. If you can't see that, there's nothing I can do for you.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 10:35 AM
Boo. This topic has been done to death.

The day the women start drawing crowds, advertising and tv air time like the men do, is the day they can receive equal pay.

And it's not like either of the sexes are roughing it out. They should be grateful for what they receive.

Silly statement. Tennis is a business. The women and men deserve their fair share of it. If they are underpaid, they don't have to feel grateful about anything.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 10:44 AM
No less intellectual than many of the points here. How much are they paying for the WTA job? :)

Ok, just look at the respective ATP and WTA tours. It's obvious which one generates more money and has a higher global interest.

When the day the WTA attracts the same level of sponsorship, TV revenue, and consistently fills stadia and their tournaments pay virtually as much as the ATP events, then they are entitled to equal prize money at the Slams.

The Slams are influenced by both the ATP and WTA, it was the WTA that helped get the women more money at Wimbledon.

Explain the last sentence.

Just show me the numbers as I've said from the start. How many more sponsorship dollars is the ATP bringing in? How much more TV revenue are they counting for (in spite of being consistently outdrawn by the latter women's rounds), and how much more attendance? You said earlier to somebody, "How do you know I don't have the numbers right in front of me?" The answer is because you don't cite them.

So you say when the WTA (if they haven't already) equals the men's tour in cash brought in, they can have equal money. Well, again, what if they surpass the men? The men should then be paid less, right?

And Mark R is Tall did make the dumbest statement of the thread. Yes of course, hypotheticals have no role in the world. Yep. That's TRUE. They're USELESS.

davor_suker
07-08-2004, 10:48 AM
No, there is less interest and they play less sets

Experimentee
07-08-2004, 04:34 PM
How many more guys have raging hormones?

Look at the number of 'sexual' threads on the MTF and wtaworld, and it seems more like the reason people post on here is because of hormones!

Experimentee
07-08-2004, 04:39 PM
John McEnroe has lamented the exact opposite. More people watching Hingis or someone practice than a lower level men's match going on at the same time.

I've observed more people watching top women, like the Williams sisters, practice than some 1st round mens matches going on at the same time, at the Australian Open.

Leo
07-09-2004, 04:50 AM
No. Equal pay for equal work. For a female winner and a male winner of a Slam to play the same number of sets en route to a Grand Slam win, the woman would have to go 3 sets in all 7 of her matches, while the man would have to win in straights sets every round. That never happens. The men play significantly more tennis and therefore deserve to be paid more. If women want the same pay at sll of the Slams, they should play the same format. It's as simple as that.

As for the TMS tournaments that the men and women play together (Miami and Indian Wells), pay should be equal they play the same number of rounds and same Best of 3 format.

I hear the popularity issue come up frequently but I don't think that should be a part of the discussion. In some places women's tennis is more popular while elsewhere in the world men's tennis brings in the larger audience and higher ratings. It's not very fair to make prize money decisions based on this, I think.

Toppu
07-09-2004, 05:38 AM
I would say ,,NO,,. I really want to talk about this with MARTINA NAVRATILOVA face to face.

Anyway equal prize money is still a good idea. But there should be some changes in order to make it possible.

- WTA itself
should be more professional in organizing things. ATP is a much much better organization. People are watching female games because of the players, not the game, while on the men side people are watching male games because they feel it is more challenging. People hate to watch top female players winning in 39 minutes or so, for instance, Martina Hingis usually had an easy job on court against lower-ranked players. Martina's fans are proud of her but tennis fans are bored. But now the two organizations are trying to work things together. I'd love to see it.

- best of 5 match
Women players these days are so strong but I'm wondering why there is no 5 set matches for them at all. It used to be best of 5 in the final of the year-end championship. If women would play best of 5 in some big tournaments, it will be some reconsideration about equal prize money in all grand slams. Anyway I wonder if the female players can play best of 5 when they all are injured so often like this.

- quality of play
It's too difficult for female 100-ranked players to beat the big names in the game while top men players can expect tough matches against almost everybody. Would you believe there will be 60 60 match at a grand slam final ? 16 years ago Graf defeated Zvereva in RG 88 without losing a single game. The gap between players on WTA is too wide. Top players are too good. TANASUGARN, my countrywoman has yet to win a set from Venus even she is ranked in the top 100 for years and reached 4th round at Wimbledon 5 straight years. ON ATP I feel it is more interesting. WTA has period after period, as much as I watch, at first Graf-Seles then the era of Hingis then little of Davenport then the Williams sisters and then little of Jennifer and now the two girls from Belgium, I do not count Myskina and Maria, while ATP has plenty of different grad slam champions, from Sampras, Agassi to Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt , Costa, Johansson, Roddick, Federer, Ferrero, Gaudio. That's the difference.

In Thailand there are tournaments both on ATP and WTA. Thailand Open is much much more popular even though last year was the very first year of the tournament while Volvo Women Open is located in Pattaya for years but has never had big crowd like Thailand Open. Anna K came to Thailand to promote tourism and the tournament but the whole focus was on her, not things she tried to promote. That tells me something.

There are still many reasons why we should have equal prize money but at the same time there are also way too many reasons why men deserve more.
At the moment I do not find any good reason why we should see equal prize money. So I disagree.

CarnivalCarnage
07-09-2004, 06:21 AM
No. Equal pay for equal work. For a female winner and a male winner of a Slam to play the same number of sets en route to a Grand Slam win, the woman would have to go 3 sets in all 7 of her matches, while the man would have to win in straights sets every round. That never happens. The men play significantly more tennis and therefore deserve to be paid more. If women want the same pay at sll of the Slams, they should play the same format. It's as simple as that.

As for the TMS tournaments that the men and women play together (Miami and Indian Wells), pay should be equal they play the same number of rounds and same Best of 3 format.

I hear the popularity issue come up frequently but I don't think that should be a part of the discussion. In some places women's tennis is more popular while elsewhere in the world men's tennis brings in the larger audience and higher ratings. It's not very fair to make prize money decisions based on this, I think.

It's also not very fair to make prize money decisions based on something completely irrelevant like sets played. Quantity does not equal more money. And that is all that matters.

Besides, you're holding women to the athletic standard of men. That isn't fair either. Why not just say they have to be as good as the male players then? That is essentially your argument. See how dumb it is?

CarnivalCarnage
07-09-2004, 06:23 AM
I would say ,,NO,,. I really want to talk about this with MARTINA NAVRATILOVA face to face.

Anyway equal prize money is still a good idea. But there should be some changes in order to make it possible.

- WTA itself
should be more professional in organizing things. ATP is a much much better organization. People are watching female games because of the players, not the game, while on the men side people are watching male games because they feel it is more challenging. People hate to watch top female players winning in 39 minutes or so, for instance, Martina Hingis usually had an easy job on court against lower-ranked players. Martina's fans are proud of her but tennis fans are bored. But now the two organizations are trying to work things together. I'd love to see it.

- best of 5 match
Women players these days are so strong but I'm wondering why there is no 5 set matches for them at all. It used to be best of 5 in the final of the year-end championship. If women would play best of 5 in some big tournaments, it will be some reconsideration about equal prize money in all grand slams. Anyway I wonder if the female players can play best of 5 when they all are injured so often like this.

- quality of play
It's too difficult for female 100-ranked players to beat the big names in the game while top men players can expect tough matches against almost everybody. Would you believe there will be 60 60 match at a grand slam final ? 16 years ago Graf defeated Zvereva in RG 88 without losing a single game. The gap between players on WTA is too wide. Top players are too good. TANASUGARN, my countrywoman has yet to win a set from Venus even she is ranked in the top 100 for years and reached 4th round at Wimbledon 5 straight years. ON ATP I feel it is more interesting. WTA has period after period, as much as I watch, at first Graf-Seles then the era of Hingis then little of Davenport then the Williams sisters and then little of Jennifer and now the two girls from Belgium, I do not count Myskina and Maria, while ATP has plenty of different grad slam champions, from Sampras, Agassi to Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt , Costa, Johansson, Roddick, Federer, Ferrero, Gaudio. That's the difference.

In Thailand there are tournaments both on ATP and WTA. Thailand Open is much much more popular even though last year was the very first year of the tournament while Volvo Women Open is located in Pattaya for years but has never had big crowd like Thailand Open. Anna K came to Thailand to promote tourism and the tournament but the whole focus was on her, not things she tried to promote. That tells me something.

There are still many reasons why we should have equal prize money but at the same time there are also way too many reasons why men deserve more.
At the moment I do not find any good reason why we should see equal prize money. So I disagree.

Buddy, if Ferrero-Costa 2002 French Open final was a three set match, it would've been 6-0 6-1. So yeah, I can believe a double bagel in a final.

dokigor
07-09-2004, 06:40 AM
LOL. And if their work was just as valuable, would you have a case then?

Your experience at tournaments is nothing but conjecture.

And why don't you compare fair with fair? 2 sets taking 50 minutes versus 3 sets taking an hour and twenty. I didn't see much difference between the early rounds of Federer and Serena at Wimbledon this year. Or would you like to use only the extreme match lengths that suit you?

To be fair, I think you're wrong. You seem to be the one picking out the examples to suit your argument. Federer is an exception. Take the Tim Henman early rounds for instance, all close affairs and mainly four of five setters, even the first one. I think Martina Navratilova proved just how much of a gap there is between the men's and women's game, and how the women's game lacks depth, this year in the first round. Nuff said !!!

CarnivalCarnage
07-09-2004, 06:44 AM
To be fair, I think you're wrong. You seem to be the one picking out the examples to suit your argument. Federer is an exception. Take the Tim Henman early rounds for instance, all close affairs and mainly four of five setters, even the first one. I think Martina Navratilova proved just how much of a gap there is between the men's and women's game, and how the women's game lacks depth, this year in the first round. Nuff said !!!

RRRRRRR, the point was that she was taking the extremes at each end. I took the extremes at the same ends. But we could each point to matches that back us up, so it's really useless to say. That's my point all along. But there is something very flawed about trying to present things as if the women are playing 50 minute two setters in the early rounds while the men are out there slaving for 4 hours in a five setter. That is ridiculous.

As for Navratilova, she drew perhaps the worst grass court player in the draw. If it were clay and at a small tournament, Castano would've destroyed her in straight sets. But she freaked out on a big court.

And i brought this up before. 39 year old Jimmy Connors makes the SEMIS of the US Open, and he's a great champion playing unbelievable tennis. 47 year old Navratilova makes comeback, gets clubbed by mediocre players like Sequera and Dulko (twice), but she manages to beat a horrible clay court player on grass and there's no depth in the women's game.

CarnivalCarnage
07-09-2004, 06:47 AM
But it's not even about depth! Nobody is comparing the standard of tennis. That should not even figure into this discussion. I've had to say that a thousand times, how many more?

Lalitha
07-09-2004, 10:11 AM
Then what is that, that bothers you in women getting paid equal?

CooCooCachoo
07-09-2004, 10:20 AM
I think it's only fair.

Leo
07-09-2004, 03:42 PM
It's also not very fair to make prize money decisions based on something completely irrelevant like sets played. Quantity does not equal more money. And that is all that matters.

Besides, you're holding women to the athletic standard of men. That isn't fair either. Why not just say they have to be as good as the male players then? That is essentially your argument. See how dumb it is?

I don't think my suggestion for the women to play Best of 5 at only 4 tournaments per year was "holding women to the athletic standard of men", actually. And I wasn't comparing quality at all. Just quantity. That's what I think the decision should be based on. Obviously you disagree, and that's perfectly fine.

Experimentee
07-09-2004, 05:10 PM
As for Navratilova, she drew perhaps the worst grass court player in the draw. If it were clay and at a small tournament, Castano would've destroyed her in straight sets. But she freaked out on a big court.


Castano won a $75K Challenger on clay the week after she lost to Nav, so obviously she can play, but grass isnt her surface. Which is what a lot of people overlook.
You are right about Connors, no one criticises the mens game when he came back, just talked about how great he must be to still be able to compete. I guess you can also say the same with Agassi, to a degree. It certainly doesnt show a lack of depth that a 34 year old can still remain in the top 10. Yes Nav is older than Agassi, but she isnt anywhere near the top 10.

vogus
02-28-2005, 04:57 PM
my thoughts on this are, if the women worried a little bit more about the 70 percent less prize money they have on their own tour compared to what the ATP offers at its regular events, instead of always complaining about the 1 percent less money that the women get at Wimby and RG, the women might start making a lot more money.

Masters Series winners get like 400,000$ for a title, while the top prize at WTA Tier 1 showcase tournies like Zurich, Charleston, Montreal/Toronto, and Rome (where the men make TWICE as much the previous week at the same venue!!) is less than 200,000$. How come the women seem to have no issues with that huge differential when they are splitting hairs over the tiny fraction more that the men get at Grand Slams?

Is there anybody who can explain this to me?

adeegee
02-28-2005, 06:33 PM
I think its absolutely ridiculous for them to expect equal money at Grand Slams. If they want equal then get them out there for 5 sets. Even if they played 5 sets I'd think equal money was being generous seeing as the top players usually lose about 1 or 2 games a set in their early round matches, whereas mens is much more competitive. And lets be honest, if mens/womens grand slams were played on different weeks, which one would have the higher attendances/viewing figures. I think we all know its men, and therefore they should get the higher money. Supply and demand, basic economics

faboozadoo15
02-28-2005, 08:03 PM
adeegee... there's a lot wrong there in your post. if you've attended a slam you would know for sure that the women in tennis get the crowd going more than the mean EASILY in the early rounds. a first round match between maria sharapova will have 100 times more interest than a first round match with carlos moya (or anyone not named federer, hewitt, or roddick).
i personally don't like that men play 5 sets in the early rounds. they should destroy their opponents in straights, thus making the third set pointless, and if they play like shit, we see a fourth set and maybe a fifth set. the women's fields are much more open these days than the mens. i can guarantee that no one other than federer, safin, roddick, or hewitt will win a slam and even that's being generous. the women's three set package is better than the mens 5 set pa ckage to the average viewer on television. you would have to go back several years in grand slams to find a slam where the highest rated match (in the us) was a mens match. hell, they can rerun a serena vs capriati match and get much higher ratings than any mens match. so it's not all about economics.

in answer to the question-- the reason it seems like equal prize money becomes a factor at the slams is because the slams are itf events. the women can't ask for equal prize money as an atp event when of course their events are sanctioned by the wta. also, the slams are a good platform since tennis is on the map and in the news at those points.

ironically enough, i don't really care about equal prize money... i just don't like it when people justify things with statements that aren't true.

adeegee
02-28-2005, 09:47 PM
faboozadoo, i couldn't disagree more.

1. i've attended wimbledon 5 straight years, and the french open last year, and I can tell you every time i've been the crowd have got into the mens matches a lot more than the womens...how many classic womens matches can you remember from the last year of slams. any that match coria v gaudio (french open) or safin v federer (oz open)

2. maria sharapova is probably the main draw in womens tennis at the moment. therefore if you asked someone whether they'd rather watch sharapova v asagoe (random player) or federer v sluiter (random player) then i guarantee most people would say federer.

3. you say you can guarantee no one will win a slam other than roddick/safin/federer/hewitt. those are the 4 best players in the world so they're expected to do well. did you not see the french open last year though, i think you'll find none of those reached the semi finals

4. you also say most men cruise through their first few round matches. roddick and federer both lost within 3 rounds of the french. safin lost early at wimbledon. federer lost in the 1st round at wimbledon not so long ago. as did hewitt. when was the last time serena williams/sharapova/davenport lost in the early rounds of a slam

5. you can't base your tv ratings argument solely on the us. yes they have the highest audiences, but the only reason the capriati v serena match you mention was watched is because both players are american, not because people prefer womens tennis. i think you'll find that in the days where sampras was playing agassi that is where the highest viewing figures were, and when usa get some top class players other than roddick it will return.

Horatio Caine
02-28-2005, 09:58 PM
Great topic mate - really controversial.

In my opinion, women shouldn't be paid the same amount of money as men at the Grand Slams. This opinion is based on a few assumptions: -

1. Men play best of 5 sets and women best of 3. Many of the women can play 4 or 5 sets at a good level - why shouldn't they? An average mens' grand slam match is about 2-2.5 hours. Women 1 - 1.5. A stark contrast.

2. Many polls suggest that people, on average, prefer to watch mens' tennis. The standard is brilliant, there are some great matches and the depth in mens's tennis huge. The depth in womens' tennis shocking, the average score is 6/2 6/2, there are fewer competitive matches and the standard of tennis is often ordinary to say the least.

That is all I can think of right now but essentially, where men and women play best of 3 sets - equal prize money. Where the men play 5 and the women 3 - the women should get paid an average sum for their court time.

Also, until viewers and crowds respect womens' tennis more and support it as much as they do the mens' tour, the womens' tour should definitely not be rewarded anything more. The organisation of the WTA Tour still leaves a lot to be desired.

Horatio Caine
02-28-2005, 10:00 PM
Adeegee - great arguments mate :worship:

I wrote my post without looking at either of yours and I've found that I've wasted a good 5 minutes writing mine which would have been better spent on my case analysis! :lol:

Horatio Caine
02-28-2005, 10:05 PM
Also, maybe this isn't the best example, but think of the poor year-end Championships the WTA Tour hosted. They couldn't even give away the tickets before the event was revamped and re-located, and even then the tickets didn't sell much better. If people don't pay to see the best players in action against each other in a showcase, why should the women get rewarded for it? Sounds harsh but it is true.

All the players below no.2 should try harder to become more competitive with the top couple of players. The matches are often ridiculous.

In contrast, the mens' year-end Championships has been excellent over the years. It was a near sell-out in Lisbon, Sydney, Shanghai, and I guess Mattress Mac might have deterred a few people in Houston but still...people pay good money to see great players and great match-ups.

There have been outstanding matches in terms of quality and duration at the Masters Cup and I think the men deserve every extra penny they get over the women.

Horatio Caine
02-28-2005, 10:24 PM
faboozadoo15...why should women get paid the same as men because the crowds are attracted to their bodies and not their tennis? Put Joachim Johansson or Nadal or someone like that on a show court in round 1 and they will draw just as big a crowd as Sharapova (assuming they aren't on at the same time).

The early rounds are often the most exciting rounds. I watched Oli Rochus v Safin R4 Aus Open and that match fitted those credentials but it was awesome. Oli gave it everything and some of the shots of both players were out of this world. Similarly Nalbandian v Ferrer R1 over 5 sets. Few matches on the womens' side matched that. A lot of matches that went to 3 sets weren't all that close - one match was won by Sugiyama 4/6 6/0 6/0.

If you asked a load of random tennis fans what their favourite matches were at the Aus Open, they would most probably say matches including Nalbandian, Hewitt, Agassi, Joachim (well he stuck in there!) Baghdatis....etc. On the womens' side I think only the SF were remotely interesting or close. The final was a load of crap.

Most people will quote a mens' match - and that is why the men should be paid more at GS level. Hell, people are still talking about the Wimbledon mens' final of 2001 - I am not shamed to say that I cried at the end of it. I do not recall one womens' GS match since that year that made me so emotional. What a match that was between Goran and Pat - I shall never forget it.

adeegee
02-28-2005, 10:34 PM
we're on the same wavelength jez, i'm interested to see faboozadoo15 respond to our combined arguments

Yoda
02-28-2005, 10:49 PM
Personally I feel the best tennis athlete should get paid more whether it be men, women, boy, girl, senior men or women.

Some of the men's senior matches attracted more interest than some of the woman's early round matches....does that mean that they should also get equal?

Horatio Caine
02-28-2005, 10:52 PM
Some of the men's senior matches attracted more interest than some of the woman's early round matches....does that mean that they should also get equal?

Maybe that is going a little too far ;) Most of them are legends and cannot really be compared to modern-day athletes who are yet to retire.

Yoda
02-28-2005, 10:56 PM
Maybe that is going a little too far ;) Most of them are legends and cannot really be compared to modern-day athletes who are yet to retire.

Forgot to add :p to the end of my last thread.

undomiele
03-01-2005, 12:05 AM
Here's a fact:

The women may play shorter matches, but statistically compared to the mens tour, they're generally much more committed to playing singles AND doubles at Grand Slams and major tournaments then the men. When looking at the top ranked players on both sides of the tour, it often turns out that the top female players play more sets than the men and often win more money than the men.

I remember having read (and i just looked it up again) that Serena had actually earned 11% more than Lleyton Hewitt had at Wimbledon 2002. By the time the GS was over, she had played 27 sets and Lleyton had played 23 sets. She had made more appearances, and collected more money, while playing shorter matches.

My opinion:

I believe that, at the same time, the world has progressed enough to understand that paying women less today in the singles segment at the GS is just no longer tenable. It just looks bad (no matter the logic) and eventually public opinion won't let the FO and Wimby get away with it. No matter what (right?) argument you may have to justify paying the men more, it is clear, to me at least, that the women will win the salary battle. Right now, both the AO and the USO are paying both sexes the same amount in prize money, and its only a matter of time until the FO and Wimbledon follow. Its just terrible PR to appear sexist in the world today, even though the directors of the FO and Wimby may hold no intentions of being sexist in the first place. The fact that half of the 4 GS's have already kowtowed to paying equal salaries makes the arguments of the directors of the other 2 slams look like excuses for them being too cheap to cough up the rest of the prize money. They will eventually have to cave in. No doubt about it. Its called the real world. And this time it will favor the women, when historically, in so many other areas of life, it has always favored the men.

Tough beans! :p

ftd999
03-01-2005, 12:13 AM
my thoughts on this are, if the women worried a little bit more about the 70 percent less prize money they have on their own tour compared to what the ATP offers at its regular events, instead of always complaining about the 1 percent less money that the women get at Wimby and RG, the women might start making a lot more money.

Masters Series winners get like 400,000$ for a title, while the top prize at WTA Tier 1 showcase tournies like Zurich, Charleston, Montreal/Toronto, and Rome (where the men make TWICE as much the previous week at the same venue!!) is less than 200,000$. How come the women seem to have no issues with that huge differential when they are splitting hairs over the tiny fraction more that the men get at Grand Slams?

Is there anybody who can explain this to me?

I doubt I can explain it, but I would guess that what they make is a function of the revenue they raise by selling tickets minus reasonable costs of putting on the tournament and whatever percentage the players union works out with the owners. I agree its an easier argument for the women at these non grand slam tournaments, because you can simply look at ticket sales of the women alone and the percentage that they get of those sales revenue. If the men are making more at their events, then very likely they are selling more tickets and raising more money. Maybe they bring in more sponsorship money as well.

However, I don't understand this either. Everyone is always saying the women's game is more popular, and I would imagine the players union tries to renegotiate player percentages each year based on the previous years ticket sales. Blah, I don't know, but I think the men must sell more tickets. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

Evaluating the slams is tough since the price of one ticket usually includes women's and men's matches (maybe not later rounds, but aren't those always sold out anyway). :)

mangoes
03-01-2005, 12:16 AM
I'm a woman always fighting for a level income field for both men and women. However, I do not think the women should be paid the same as the men in tennis. I have only ventured to one female match, and that was to see Serena in action. Overall, the female matches are rediculous. They win one day, lose the other. I can't remember a great female match...............well yes I can, between Serena and Capriati. However, I can quote several great matches between the men, even as late as the Australian semifinal between Marat and Roger. So yes, I do not think the women have earned an equal salary to the men.

ftd999
03-01-2005, 12:17 AM
I think its absolutely ridiculous for them to expect equal money at Grand Slams. If they want equal then get them out there for 5 sets. Even if they played 5 sets I'd think equal money was being generous seeing as the top players usually lose about 1 or 2 games a set in their early round matches, whereas mens is much more competitive. And lets be honest, if mens/womens grand slams were played on different weeks, which one would have the higher attendances/viewing figures. I think we all know its men, and therefore they should get the higher money. Supply and demand, basic economics

I don't think you can make the argument based on how long they play matches. Like you note below, what they make generally should be based on what they raise in ticket sales. I don't know who would make more, but hasn't the media been pounding that women's tennis is more popular.

The women should push for a system (like you said, playing at different times) so that it will be clear who is selling the tickets :)

mangoes
03-01-2005, 12:23 AM
I totally agree, this argument should not be based on the length of their matches. But, I think the ATP is more popular than the WTA. I do think the system of ticket sales would be the fairest way to settle this dispute.

ftd999
03-01-2005, 12:24 AM
Great topic mate - really controversial.

In my opinion, women shouldn't be paid the same amount of money as men at the Grand Slams. This opinion is based on a few assumptions: -

1. Men play best of 5 sets and women best of 3. Many of the women can play 4 or 5 sets at a good level - why shouldn't they? An average mens' grand slam match is about 2-2.5 hours. Women 1 - 1.5. A stark contrast.

2. Many polls suggest that people, on average, prefer to watch mens' tennis. The standard is brilliant, there are some great matches and the depth in mens's tennis huge. The depth in womens' tennis shocking, the average score is 6/2 6/2, there are fewer competitive matches and the standard of tennis is often ordinary to say the least.

That is all I can think of right now but essentially, where men and women play best of 3 sets - equal prize money. Where the men play 5 and the women 3 - the women should get paid an average sum for their court time.



No offense, but I don't understand why the length of a match or level of play should determine prize money. Remember, the tours are businesses. If Federer and Agassi come play 10 sets in my backyard and its 21-19 in the tenth, they're not going to get paid squat if I haven't sold any tickets. The players pay comes directly from the tickets they sell, right? Then shouldn't the pay of the women be based on that? :confused:

Horatio Caine
03-01-2005, 12:26 AM
No offense, but I don't understand why the length of a match or level of play should determine prize money. Remember, the tours are businesses. If Federer and Agassi come play 10 sets in my backyard and its 21-19 in the tenth, they're not going to get paid squat if I haven't sold any tickets. The players pay comes directly from the tickets they sell, right? Then shouldn't the pay of the women be based on that? :confused:

I did mention that in a previous post relating to the year-end championships of both the men and women over the last 5 years ;)

Sosa
03-01-2005, 12:36 AM
I usually go for equal pay. but come on, you can not compare the standard of the ATP and the WTA. There's just no way. The top 100 on the men's side are all top athletes where as the women...well.
Granted the the top 10 or top 20 of the WTA got a whole lot better over the years. remember the old days of Graf and Seles. it couldn't have been more boring.
Also, I might get some bashing for that, but women draw bigger crowds lately cos the players just got a whole lot prettier. That's a huge factor in my opinon.
Back in the old days there were no Kournikovas, Sharapovas, Hantuchovas or Kirilenkos.

What I also don't like about the WTA tour is the lack of sportsmenship. Nobody ever seems to want to give any credit to their opponent after a loss. It's always, I had a blister, or the balls were too heavy, otherwise I would have kicked her ass kind of thing.

Whereas men always give credit.

mangoes
03-01-2005, 12:36 AM
No offense, but I don't understand why the length of a match or level of play should determine prize money. Remember, the tours are businesses. If Federer and Agassi come play 10 sets in my backyard and its 21-19 in the tenth, they're not going to get paid squat if I haven't sold any tickets. The players pay comes directly from the tickets they sell, right? Then shouldn't the pay of the women be based on that? :confused:


Totally agree with you. I think that is the fairest way to settle this dispute. But a quick question, doesn't an ATP event cost more than a WTA event??

vogus
03-01-2005, 12:40 AM
Here's a fact:

The women may play shorter matches, but statistically compared to the mens tour, they're generally much more committed to playing singles AND doubles at Grand Slams and major tournaments then the men... :p


hello, did you happen to have an opinion on the men earning two and a half times as much as the women at the Canadian and German Opens? Your post is a perfect example of somebody who is missing the point. :rolleyes:

ca1houn
03-01-2005, 12:50 AM
the women bring in higher rating mostly because of the sister so if it dominate the rating pay them. Im not big fan of women tennis but everybody knows that they bring in the rating. Williams sister like or not bring in the most-viewer. In fact the final between Serena and Lindsay Davenport recieve a 1.5 rating and was viewed in an average by 1.35 million households making it ESPN2's highest-rated and tennis telecast in history; not bad for cable tv. Serena has shown her star power the highest-rated tennis telecasts seem too always have a williams in the draw. I hate to say it, cause Federer is by far my favorite tennis player but he’s not going to bring in the big buck like the sister.

tennisinparis
03-01-2005, 12:57 AM
okay, so I am going to post on this topic, despite the fact I might get slammed for it. my personal opinion, they should be paid the same. there are many different issues people have brought up, but let me just point out two things:

1. playing 5 set matces, usually allow for the top players to come out on top more often than not. if they fall behind early, it gives them a longer time to recover. at the same time, a 3 set match puts emphasis on the early part of the match. now, in a 5 set match, very rarely do you see a random player, pullout a five-setter. but when the players get closer in rankings, the matches get tighter and five-setters become bigger, which is where you see major matches, like Safin vs Federer AUSOpen. So that accounts for some of the reason, the top name women's tennis players lose out so soon,because once they get in trouble, they have very little time to work out of their hole.

2. entertainment, tennis is not about flesh (male or female) and it should not be based on that (the payments at least). it should not be based on who attracts more people, because let me give you this situation, what if in a Grand Slam final, you have Ivan Ljubicic vs. Fabrice Santoro (althought I think this very unlikely ever) and in the women's side, you have Maria Sharapova vs. Serena Williams, then the females should earn more than the men, because in the end, if those were the two finals for any grand slam, the womens side in that set will take more attention.

so in final, i think they should both end up earning the same amount, because those men have to work through many more sets (pressumably). The women have to be perfect (or nearly perfect) all week, to avoid being tossed early. and both sides put in their fair share of time for the sport in general. so, that is purely my opinion and i have little say in anything related to this. hope i don't get slammed for this too much.

mangoes
03-01-2005, 01:00 AM
the women bring in higher rating mostly because of the sister so if it dominate the rating pay them. Im not big fan of women tennis but everybody knows that they bring in the rating. Williams sister like or not bring in the most-viewer. In fact the final between Serena and Lindsay Davenport recieve a 1.5 rating and was viewed in an average by 1.35 million households making it ESPN2's highest-rated and tennis telecast in history; not bad for cable tv. Serena has shown her star power the highest-rated tennis telecasts seem too always have a williams in the draw. I hate to say it, cause Federer is by far my favorite tennis player but he’s not going to bring in the big buck like the sister.

Oh I agree about Serena, in America at least. I don't know about the rest of the world. The only WTA matches I watch involve Serena. She is the only attraction for me in the WTA. I personally think that when Serena brings her A game, there is NO ONE on the WTA that can beat her. Otherwise, I don't watch the WTA. Federer is my favorite Tennis Player. I think he is more popular in Europe than in America. I also do think that Federer brings in the dough. If you watch Federer's matches, they are usually sold out events. The Netherlands saw an increase in attendance due to Federer, and at Dubai, every one of Federer's matches were sold out. Federer is a big draw.

tennisinparis
03-01-2005, 01:13 AM
okay, in now way am i siding with the WTA, but consider this, claims that the ATP has overall more competitive field than the WTA, let me ask you this, take the Australian Open for example, the final four on the mens side were the No. 1 No.2 No.3 and No.4 seeds, does not seem to be too much competitive field when the final four are the top four seeds; whereas on the women's side, it was completely different (don't remember their actual seeds, so I cannot comment too much, I think No.1, No.7, No.10 and maybe No.5). Now, if you want to consider, the lower half (those ranked between No.20-40 in each side), the mens side is going to be more competitive, you never know if the No. 40 ranked person will upset the No. 25 ranked person. On the women's side, in the lower rankings, there aren't as many upsets. It usually falls in line. But once you get into the Top 10, the mens side usually falls in order, each person holds his ranking as true, but on the womes side, any Top 10 player can beat(won't use the phrase upset) another Top10 player.

Last point, how can you claim a competitive men's field when Roger Federer won 3 of 4 Grand Slams last year and finished with the 11 titles, compared to the next closest Hewitt and Roddick's 4 titles. That seems very uncompetitive to me at least. By the way, it got overly boring last year watching Roger win all of those, there wasn't anyone to hope on pulling the upset defeat.

But my heart still lies with the ATP, although the WTA is getting better, still a long way to go, but getting better.

uNIVERSE mAN
03-01-2005, 01:31 AM
I'll add my two cents on this topic. I also don't agree with any kind of equal prize money, in fact, I think the women get paid too much already. Women's tennis is a disgrace. Not only can women not even hold serve, they don't even have a strategy in a match. Watching a women's match is tortureous, flat groundies (since they have no wrist strength for topspin) and stupid bashing until someone misses. This is a very inferior product to Men's tennis.

p.s. to all the women's supporters, why do you think the featured matches (last in session) in a joint tournament are always men's? i.e. grand slam night sessions or other featured sessions? Maybe because you want the tv audience to stick around and not disappear after the men's match finished.

TennisLurker
03-01-2005, 01:57 AM
Is Mauresmo the only heavy topspin player in the top 10?

Or is Schnyder in the top 10 too?

TennisLurker
03-01-2005, 02:00 AM
What I dont like about the wta is the dokic style, unsubtle baseliners with 2 handed backhands who hit the ball hard and flat making unforced errors all over the place hitting tons of double faults, with no point construction at all, no use of angles, no net game, crushing two handed backhand swing volleys etc

There are only more or less 15 wta players that I can stand watching.

Just think of the serena drop shot

Chloe le Bopper
03-01-2005, 02:44 AM
Professional tennis is a business. If the women truly don't bring in as much revenue as the men, I don't have a problem with them not making as much.

However, I have a problem with one of the arguments that is frequently repeated in threads like this, and that is the "women don't play 5 sets argument". It's moot. Even if they wanted to, the women would not be allowed to play 5 sets. It would be a disaster for scheduling and TV. For that reason, this point shouldn't even come up, IMO. The women will never have the option to play 5 sets, and that is that. Thus, this should not be held up as a reason that they get paid less than the men.

Action Jackson
03-01-2005, 02:57 AM
If the WTA are so sure that they bring in equal revenue at the Slams and generate as much as money as the ATP. Then they should release these figures and get an independent auditor to both tours and see where the sponsorship, ticket sales and the prizemoney is favoured to.

I doubt they do as women's tennis globally (not just in the USA) doesn't bring in as much as revenue as the men's game and that is a common theme throughout the sporting world with a few exceptions.

If the WTA do that, then yes they should get equal prizemoney.

Ace Tracker
03-01-2005, 04:23 AM
If the WTA are so sure that they bring in equal revenue at the Slams and generate as much as money as the ATP. Then they should release these figures and get an independent auditor to both tours and see where the sponsorship, ticket sales and the prizemoney is favoured to.

I doubt they do as women's tennis globally (not just in the USA) doesn't bring in as much as revenue as the men's game and that is a common theme throughout the sporting world with a few exceptions.

If the WTA do that, then yes they should get equal prizemoney.

BINGO! sponsors are in to get a return for their products... the ATP, even with the whole ISG fiasco, was never in dire straits the way the WTA was after Sanex threatened to withdraw sponsorship... one might blame it on the WTA's lack of leadership, but the women's tour as a whole has never been as marketable as the men's... there is a capitalist reason for the higher prize money in the men's tour outside the Slams, when compared to the WTA's Tier's I, II and on...: sponsors get better return and exposure. Corporations are not investing because of players' perfect technique and skills or lenght of matches. They are in to get their investment back in revenues and product association! and clearly and at least for now, those marketing CEO's think that the ATP provides them with better opportunities, no matter what WTAWorld's GM and US TV ratings would like us to believe...2002 USOpen final between Agassi and Sampras had almost twice as much ratings as the all Williams final.

Regarding the American TV ratings for the Aussie finals, how quick people forget that the women's finals was played during prime time Friday night involving two Americans, while the men's was aired during the eerie hours of Sunday morning! Time difference doesn't make the Aussie particularly suitable for American viewership... even though, ESPN2 was so pleased with the ratings they were getting for their coverage, that they almost doubled their initial time alocation dedicated to tennis, broadcasting mainly men's matches and deciding to show the men's final live, instead of tape delay... it was intriguingly interesting to see that most of the extra airing time was dedicated to showcase non-American male players, while viewers still didn't get to see any more playtime outside the American women-Sharapova combo...

there is a common conception, maybe a misconception, maybe not, that the men's tour tends to attract more fans of the game, as opposed to the women's tour attracting more fans of the players/characters/personalities... maybe due to this, sponsorship money is raining over a few select female players, like AnnaK, Serena and Masha, but not so much for the tour itself and the other less marketeable players... the ATP fans on the other hand, seem to be more loyal to the game itself, and tennis fans are usually the crowd that attends tournaments, practice the game and buy equipment... this is the crowd that sponsors are after, and this might help explain the variation in available money between both tours...

Action Jackson
03-01-2005, 04:32 AM
Welcome back Ace good to see you posting again.

This issue is a really tired one for me and that's why I am not in the mood for the explanations, but your post covered that very clearly.

There is a misconception that cause tennis might be struggling in America that it's struggling everywhere else it's not true. There are vast markets out there ie (Asia) for this niche sport and it will always be a niche sport no matter what people try and say otherwise.

The last paragraph is interesting as the only time I have been at an event when the women are there are the Slams and Sydney, as I am more interested in the ATP. There is a definite difference between certain fans and the sponsors are aware of this.

The ATP definitely bounced back after the ISL fiasco.

adeegee
03-01-2005, 04:16 PM
yeah i cant really be bothered with the argument anymore. but one last idea, we play a mixed french open, prize money being dished out as usual, lowest-first round, highest-winner....then we'll all laugh at the women when they go out in the first 2 rounds. if they want equal money they have to justify it, how about by competing with the men. we can even play over 3 sets seeing as women obviously can't last 5 :p

Space Cowgirl
03-01-2005, 06:47 PM
The women will never have the option to play 5 sets, and that is that. Thus, this should not be held up as a reason that they get paid less than the men.
So...should the men not be restricted to best of 3 sets as well? :confused:
I'm not sure what I think of all this ATP v WTA pay stuff. I don't watch women's tennis much so am not really qualified to comment.

federer express
03-01-2005, 07:14 PM
equal prize money? two words...hell no!

Chloe le Bopper
03-01-2005, 07:19 PM
yeah i cant really be bothered with the argument anymore. but one last idea, we play a mixed french open, prize money being dished out as usual, lowest-first round, highest-winner....then we'll all laugh at the women when they go out in the first 2 rounds. if they want equal money they have to justify it, how about by competing with the men. we can even play over 3 sets seeing as women obviously can't last 5 :p

I think that you're just being silly here, but the issue isn't whether or not the women can last 5 sets. As far as I know, women aren't necessarily lacking in endurance, if they train properly. The problem is in time constraints. It is just not feasible to have the women play 5 sets. TV networks wouldn't have it, and the organizers of the slams wouldn't have it. It's hard enough for them to fit the men in under that format.

Chloe le Bopper
03-01-2005, 07:21 PM
So...should the men not be restricted to best of 3 sets as well? :confused:
I'm not sure what I think of all this ATP v WTA pay stuff. I don't watch women's tennis much so am not really qualified to comment.
Not necessarily. The schedule already allows for the men to play 5 sets and the networks are already willing to cut a deal with the tournament knowing that they can fit a womens match and a mens match in a certain slot of time, or whatever. I think that throwing an extra 30-60 minutes onto the average womens match would seriously comprimise the schedule... that's all. I'm not necessarily saying that the format for the men is a problem, just that having that format X2 would be. Am I making sense?

Chloe le Bopper
03-01-2005, 07:21 PM
equal prize money? two words...hell no!
You know, if you don't clarify your point as other have, you simply come across as a sexist pig :p

federer express
03-01-2005, 07:37 PM
You know, if you don't clarify your point as other have, you simply come across as a sexist pig :p

me?? a sexist pig? i'm hurt chloe. no i didn't elaborate further as it's an age old argument and one nobody ever changes their mind on. and essentially the main reason has already been pointed out by GWH. didn't see much value in repeating it.

Chloe le Bopper
03-01-2005, 07:42 PM
me?? a sexist pig? i'm hurt chloe. no i didn't elaborate further as it's an age old argument and one nobody ever changes their mind on. and essentially the main reason has already been pointed out by GWH. didn't see much value in repeating it.
I was only teasing!

federer express
03-01-2005, 07:44 PM
I was only teasing!

lol...i thought u might be

Marine
03-01-2005, 07:49 PM
NO

adeegee
03-01-2005, 07:57 PM
I think that you're just being silly here, but the issue isn't whether or not the women can last 5 sets. As far as I know, women aren't necessarily lacking in endurance, if they train properly. The problem is in time constraints. It is just not feasible to have the women play 5 sets. TV networks wouldn't have it, and the organizers of the slams wouldn't have it. It's hard enough for them to fit the men in under that format.

yeah i was being silly. my main points were made in my first post on page 1

joske
03-01-2005, 08:09 PM
hmmmm difficult to say.. what George W Hitler said about the sponsors and everything makes sense tho..

y'know i do have the impression that a lot of people on MTF look down upon the WTA.. but i don't really see why?

true, the women play shorter matches and are pretty weak compared to the men.. but then again, against each-other they have some great matches *think about Justine Henin vs Jen Capriati in that US Open semi.. when was it.. that was one of the best tennis matches i'd ever seen on both men's and women's tour* and rivalries... okay i haven't been following tennis for as long as a lot of you guys, but I just think some of you -I'm NOT saying ALL of you!- are always oh the WTA this and sigh the WTA that.. I can enjoy a women's match as much as a men's match
after all, men's tour can produce some boring matches as well.. and then they take even longer cos they have to win more sets :p

anyways i know this thread wasn't really about this particular subject but reading a lot of the remarks reminded me of these feelings a large number of people have on the WTA tour....

right, thusfar my almost-novel :rolleyes: :lol: peace 2 all

Aguante_el_Gato
03-01-2005, 08:16 PM
In my opinion, it's not a sex question, nor of age.
I believe that if Davenport, Federer, Connors, Monfils or a young stranger 14 years old worked like administrative employees of the same company, fulfilling same objective, and they absolutely just did it with the same efficiency, THEY ALL SHOULD RECEIVE THE SAME WAGE.
But if they were advertising models (salesmen of image and illusions) and received based on the income that they generate by his campaigns, it seems to me ABSOLUTELY reasonable that Federer gains more if produces more.
And I believe that this it is the point, masculine tennis SELLS more than the feminine one and for that reason it's paid to him more, and it seems to me reasonable.
Also I believe that, if at some future date the situation went to the inverse one would be reasonable that is paid more to the women (maybe if a guy as Federer wins everything and the public bored of masculine tennis).

shaoyu
03-01-2005, 08:24 PM
People who have some business sense should immediately understand that men's tennis is a more popular product based on the difference in tour money. I can imagine why ATP don't want to have too many coed events with WTA; look at the two slams under attack for paying a couple of percentage difference in prize money! So earn your own money instead of joining pool dividing half portion, thank you :p

vogus
03-01-2005, 08:28 PM
People who have some business sense should immediately understand that men's tennis is a more popular product based on the difference in tour money. I can imagine why ATP don't want to have too many coed events with WTA; look at the two slams under attack for paying a couple of percentage difference in prize money! So earn your own money instead of joining pool dividing half portion, thank you :p


a sensible post. :)

mangoes
03-01-2005, 09:12 PM
People who have some business sense should immediately understand that men's tennis is a more popular product based on the difference in tour money. I can imagine why ATP don't want to have too many coed events with WTA; look at the two slams under attack for paying a couple of percentage difference in prize money! So earn your own money instead of joining pool dividing half portion, thank you :p


Totally agree. To prove this point, I asked my sister during a shared lunch to name 5 female tennis players. She said serena, venus, capriati, davenport. She couldn't name a fifth. I asked her to name 5 male players, she listed 8. She is not an avid tennis fan. But my point is the ATP is more popular hence more sponsership equaling higher prize money.

joske
03-01-2005, 09:15 PM
Totally agree. To prove this point, I asked my sister during a shared lunch to name 5 female tennis players. She said serena, venus, capriati, davenport.

all Americans.. big surprise :rolleyes:

mangoes
03-01-2005, 09:18 PM
Well we do live in America................. and so she knows the American female tennis athletes. However, in her list of 8, she forgot to mention roddick. But my only point was about the popularity of the wta vs atp. But I fail to see why she naming only Americans is a problem???? I believe that each country should know its athletes and be proud of them. I hope that wasn't meant as an insult because if so I get the direction of your comments and am saddened that you have to attach a sterotype of Americans onto me.

joske
03-01-2005, 09:19 PM
k.. no hard feelings? :)

mangoes
03-01-2005, 09:25 PM
No, but after reading your signature, I am interpreting some of your thoughts. Please remember, in every country, there are individuals that don't agree with the direction of their government, but nothing can be done. However, that doesn't stop us from loving our country.

SanTaureau Fan
03-01-2005, 10:35 PM
Slams are combined events. When you pay, you go see men, you go see women. It's absolutely impossible to prove how much money men and women generate each. Let's say a Davenport fan only buy a ticket to see Davenport (and wouldn't buy one otherwise), even if 95% of the time that person watches mens matches, still, that person only bought a ticket to see Davenport. So even by looking at crowd for men and women matches, it proves nothing.

It's totally absurd given the total prize money to NOT give women equal pay. It's almost the same, the only reason they're not giving it is to make a point. At this point, it IS sexism. It's a slap in the face for women. It's like you have 2 children, you give for Christmas 150$ for one, 130$ for the other one.

3 sets vs 5 sets? Irrelevant. When you go see a 3 hours movie, do you pay more than a 1h30 movie? And like Chloe mentionned, women can't play 5 sets even if they want to.

Let's look it that way, it's way too complex (or impossible) for women to be able to prove they generate the same amount of money as men. So why not making it simple and respectful and give equal prize money? Not only that, if there would come a point they would be able to prove they generate more money than men, would the ITF pay women more? We all know the answer is a no.

adeegee
03-01-2005, 10:47 PM
And like Chloe mentionned, women can't play 5 sets even if they want to.

Let's look it that way, it's way too complex (or impossible) for women to be able to prove they generate the same amount of money as men.

Why can't women play 5 sets? There is no biological evidence which suggests men are able to exercise longer than women?

They could play the mens and womens grand slams on different weeks and see which gets the higher attendances/viewing figures. It'll never happen but its a way of finding out. Personally I'd be thrilled if I didn't have what usually happens, a mens match interrupted midway through so they can go to centre court to see Serena Williams beat Camille Pin 6-0 6-1

Nimomunz
03-01-2005, 10:47 PM
i just dont care for womens tennis!! it bores me! i wouldnt pay money to watch a womens tennis match! i would rather watch hyrbaty vs Srichapan than S. Williams vs Sharapova...... but that could be coz i LOATHE Sharapova!!!

SanTaureau Fan
03-01-2005, 10:50 PM
Why can't women play 5 sets? There is no biological evidence which suggests men are able to exercise longer than women?

They could play the mens and womens grand slams on different weeks and see which gets the higher attendances/viewing figures. It'll never happen but its a way of finding out. Personally I'd be thrilled if I didn't have what usually happens, a mens match interrupted midway through so they can go to centre court to see Serena Williams beat Camille Pin 6-0 6-1

Lack of time in a day... Even at the French Open, matches have to be posponed the day after because they don't have the time to finish matches. And at Wimbledon with the rain...

And one of the reason Slams are interesting is that women and men play at the same time. In term of marketing and everything, it's way better to have a combined event... To have both events on different weeks would be a mistake, and it would be a problem for the mixed double tournament anyway.

adeegee
03-01-2005, 10:52 PM
Lack of time in a day... Even at the French Open, matches have to be posponed the day after because they don't have the time to finish matches. And at Wimbledon with the rain...

And one of the reason Slams are interesting is that women and men play at the same time. In term of marketing and everything, it's way better to have a combined event... To have both events on different weeks would be a mistake, and it would be a problem for the mixed double tournament anyway.

Well as I say if they played them on different weeks it would be an interesting experiment. That would end problems with the scheduling as well. I can't see it ever happening but it would be interesting

adeegee
03-01-2005, 10:54 PM
i just dont care for womens tennis!! it bores me! i wouldnt pay money to watch a womens tennis match! i would rather watch hyrbaty vs Srichapan than S. Williams vs Sharapova...... but that could be coz i LOATHE Sharapova!!!

damn right...and i'll stick my neck on the line and say sharapova is probably the worst winner/loser i've ever seen in my life. that end of season wta championship final against an injured serena williams made me sick

Smankyou
03-01-2005, 11:28 PM
The day Serena starts pulling crowds and tv ratings (worldwide, and not just US based) like Roger does is the day she can earn the same amount. It's as simple as that.

PaulieM
03-01-2005, 11:42 PM
Slams are combined events. When you pay, you go see men, you go see women. It's absolutely impossible to prove how much money men and women generate each. Let's say a Davenport fan only buy a ticket to see Davenport (and wouldn't buy one otherwise), even if 95% of the time that person watches mens matches, still, that person only bought a ticket to see Davenport. So even by looking at crowd for men and women matches, it proves nothing.

It's totally absurd given the total prize money to NOT give women equal pay. It's almost the same, the only reason they're not giving it is to make a point. At this point, it IS sexism. It's a slap in the face for women. It's like you have 2 children, you give for Christmas 150$ for one, 130$ for the other one.

3 sets vs 5 sets? Irrelevant. When you go see a 3 hours movie, do you pay more than a 1h30 movie? And like Chloe mentionned, women can't play 5 sets even if they want to.

Let's look it that way, it's way too complex (or impossible) for women to be able to prove they generate the same amount of money as men. So why not making it simple and respectful and give equal prize money? Not only that, if there would come a point they would be able to prove they generate more money than men, would the ITF pay women more? We all know the answer is a no.
I agree :) Equal Pay for Everyone!!!
and for a long time in terms of tv popularity etc. women's tennis has definitely been on top. and maybe the reason is because people think they are hot or whatever but who cares, they are helping the sport and getting people intersted and should get the pay they deserve. I'm amazed at some of the old fashioned sexist opinions that have been expressed in this thread. :o

TennisLurker
03-01-2005, 11:46 PM
I dont think wta is more popular now than 15 years ago

PaulieM
03-02-2005, 12:01 AM
i meant mostly during the 90s and early this decade. although the OZ women's final and serena's semi against sharapova this year were the most watched tennis telecasts in espn history

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 12:15 AM
i meant mostly during the 90s and early this decade. although the OZ women's final and serena's semi against sharapova this year were the most watched tennis telecasts in espn history

ESPN is not the world.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 12:17 AM
equal prize money? two words...hell no!

Well said.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 12:40 AM
The day Serena starts pulling crowds and tv ratings (worldwide, and not just US based) like Roger does is the day she can earn the same amount. It's as simple as that.

And the day a WTA player will produce better tv ratings and crowds, you also agree they should pay women more?

Also, do you have worldwide tv ratings? I would like to see them.

AlexNYR
03-02-2005, 01:33 AM
whether the woman deserve equal pay or not is irrelevant. they were able to get the organizers to pony up more money so kudos to the wta or whomever orchestarted the deal. One thing the wta has to its advantage is the us market overides the rest of the world market. america is a consumer nation and advirtisers know (if i remember correctly) when they do surveys about which sports people really follow/like mens tennis gets 1% and women gets 2%...and while the mens game is better , the women make way too many unforced errors, they can also market non tennis related "things" like faces and other body parts to get sponsors...and if im not mistaken isnt the sony erricson deal worth more than the mercedes benz deal? and i agree that the fans of mens tennis watch more for tennis than any other reason, but many womens tennis fans do watch for looks. as a us resident cant speak for the rest of the world but the average stick and ball male sport fan knows sharapova and the williams sisters more than fererer and hewitt and roddick. agassi ide venture to say is the most well known male tennis player.

again as a fan of both the men's and women's games i have no porblem if the women were able to get the same money. and yes the mens game is superior in every way and i know the womens game is not as good, nad just by using that criteria the women dont deserve the same money but the skill level isn't the only thing that goes into marketing/endorsements. i still enjoy the momens' matches cause i dont expect the same level of play. thats my opinion seeing things here in america.

Jackie
03-02-2005, 05:37 AM
Here's an idea - pay players according to the number of games they win. This means that the losing player is rewarded if s/he puts up a good fight. At the slams, women have the opportunity to make less in singles [due to best of 3 set matches], but the shorter matches should mean that those who are fit enough [and therefore deserving] can play doubles too

jtipson
03-02-2005, 09:03 AM
I couldn't care less, to be honest.

The differential in prize money only occurs at Wimbledon and Roland Garros. Have you ever noticed how the stands empty there when a women's match starts? I know I use that time to go and get a food or wander over to the practice courts. I think the audience in Europe cares less about women's tennis.

The differential is very small, only a couple percent. Even the big cheques are only a few thousand less than what the men get, and the big players who get them have so much that it would hardly matter to them.

The more important issue is the distribution of prizemoney. Have the players further down the rankings get a higher proportion of the pot. That would really help folks outside the top 100 to earn a living, and in my opinion is much more important than some slight increase at two tournaments in the name of equal opportunity.


PS Please don't ask the women to play 5 sets. Too many WTA players get injured already, won't more sets make it worse? And anyway, five sets would be a killer for the spectators and TV, women's tennis is already boring enough.

Marine
03-02-2005, 11:33 AM
I don't understand why all this debate...women are boring to see ! Whe I go to RG I don't pay for them, and it makes me nervous to have to see 2 matches of girls on the central.
Some people say now women are most interesting to watch etc...I don't agree. The top 5 is quite interesting when they play each other, like sharapova/serena for eexample, but a match between a top 10 vs a 50th is horrible to see, the difference is so important !
Even some finals between the best players are boring, see RG the last year, Miskyna/ Dementieve :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 11:35 AM
Marine, it's a tired debate and a boring point and even more boring when they consider males sexist because they don't agree with equal prizemoney even when there are rational and sound economic reasons as to why this view has been taken.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 11:57 AM
Who cares about whether womens tennis is boring or not? How does it have any relevance to the debate?

If there would be a huge difference between men and women price money, then I would understand that they wouldn't want right away to make it equal because the difference would be too important for them economically... But at the moment, they don't give equal price money simply to make a point. They think womens tennis is less good, so they give slighly less money as a way to express how they feel about womens tennis. Do you really think it's rational or based on sound economic reasons... No, it's based on how they feel about womens tennis as a sport.

And, economically, I'm waiting for a proof mens are generating more money. Can you show me detailed numbers around the world to support your point?

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 12:02 PM
Where is there an example of major international sports where the women draw in more money through TV revenue, corporate sponsorship and respective ticket sales?
It doesn't happen in football, not basketball, not volleyball and definitely not tennis,

You're seriously deluded if you think the WTA internationally (not the USA) out draws and outgrosses the ATP when it comes to these factors. If it was the case why don't the WTA events have as much as prizemoney as the ATP overall.

Why is Davis Cup a lot healthier than the Fed Cup. The end of season champs for the respective tours there weren't many free seats at TMC, yet there was lucky to be seats taken at the WTA one.

It's the supporters of the WTA and equal prizemoney crusaders for them to prove that they are deserving of that and not the ATP.

Marine
03-02-2005, 12:03 PM
Marine, it's a tired debate and a boring point and even more boring when they consider males sexist because they don't agree with equal prizemoney even when there are rational and sound economic reasons as to why this view has been taken.

ehhehh I'm not sexist and I don't think men are macho when they say...what I think ;)
It's like with the Williams...people who don't like them are racist :rolleyes:

jtipson
03-02-2005, 12:05 PM
... But at the moment, they don't give equal price money simply to make a point. They think womens tennis is less good, so they give slighly less money as a way to express how they feel about womens tennis. Do you really think it's rational or based on sound economic reasons... No, it's based on how they feel about womens tennis as a sport.

And, economically, I'm waiting for a proof mens are generating more money. Can you show me detailed numbers around the world to support your point?

Wimbledon and Roland Garros have always (as far as I know) paid men more than women. It's not like they have reduced the women's prize money because they think less of them.

Why do we need to prove that men generate more money when we don't want to change anything? If you are using this economic argument to support equal prize-money for women, then surely it's you who needs to prove that women generate more than men.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 12:06 PM
ehhehh I'm not sexist and I don't think men are macho when they say...what I think ;)
It's like with the Williams...people who don't like them are racist :rolleyes:

I know I was making a joke about it. Yes, I must be racist cause I don't like the Williams sisters and I must hate tall blondes if I don't like Miss Screecharova.

Marine
03-02-2005, 12:06 PM
They think womens tennis is less good, so they give slighly less money as a way to express how they feel about womens tennis.
It's true, so it's an excellent reason.
End of the debate for me.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 12:14 PM
It's true, so it's an excellent reason.
End of the debate for me.

Bye.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 12:20 PM
Wimbledon and Roland Garros have always (as far as I know) paid men more than women. It's not like they have reduced the women's prize money because they think less of them.

Why do we need to prove that men generate more money when we don't want to change anything? If you are using this economic argument to support equal prize-money for women, then surely it's you who needs to prove that women generate more than men.

Wimbledon and Roland Garros don't give equal price money because they think less of women's tennis as a sport. Just my opinion, but it's quite obvious. Nothing to do with economic.

And I'm not using the economic argument... People against equal prize money are the one who use the economic argument.

It's a combined event, and my opinion is that we can't really prove how much men and women generate separately (they're selling a combined event, nuff' said). If they want to pay women less, then do separate events.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 12:23 PM
Where is there an example of major international sports where the women draw in more money through TV revenue, corporate sponsorship and respective ticket sales?
It doesn't happen in football, not basketball, not volleyball and definitely not tennis,

You're seriously deluded if you think the WTA internationally (not the USA) out draws and outgrosses the ATP when it comes to these factors. If it was the case why don't the WTA events have as much as prizemoney as the ATP overall.

Why is Davis Cup a lot healthier than the Fed Cup. The end of season champs for the respective tours there weren't many free seats at TMC, yet there was lucky to be seats taken at the WTA one.

It's the supporters of the WTA and equal prizemoney crusaders for them to prove that they are deserving of that and not the ATP.

Conjonctures.

Others sports, irrelevant.

WTA events, irrelevant.

Davis Cup and Fed Cup, irrelevant.

End of year champs, irrelevant.

We don't need to prove anything. They're selling a combined event. When you pay, you pay to see men AND women. And when you watch tv, sometimes it's men, sometimes it's women. There could be thousands of people watching the end of a mens match because they're waiting for a womens match to start.

KarstenBraasch#1
03-02-2005, 12:27 PM
You're seriously deluded if you think the WTA internationally (not the USA) out draws and outgrosses the ATP when it comes to these factors. If it was the case why don't the WTA events have as much as prizemoney as the ATP overall.

Why is Davis Cup a lot healthier than the Fed Cup. The end of season champs for the respective tours there weren't many free seats at TMC, yet there was lucky to be seats taken at the WTA one.

It's the supporters of the WTA and equal prizemoney crusaders for them to prove that they are deserving of that and not the ATP.
Davis Cup has a tradition of more than 100 years, Fed Cup is still relatively new. It just doesn't have the same importance, but that's not the women's fault.
And it WAS going well as a one-week event until they decided to change the format every year.

Similar for year-end championships. Women's event was going well in MSG, then they moved it around. Now it's in LA, they have round-robin and it's going much better. The quality of play is often poor, but I'm sure all this will improve in the next years.

You have to remember that men's tennis has always had more prize-money since the Open Era began. The WTA is still trying to catch up.

Angle Queen
03-02-2005, 12:29 PM
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think it's about...

Supply and demand, basic economicsIf the women really think they're getting the short end of things at Wimby...how about a strike...like the men did in '73.

That said, I think the womens product at the Slams is equal to the mens (in terms of overall quality and entertainment value) and I'd be open to the idea that they deserve equal pay. I still inherently believe in the play more-pay more scheme that 5-set vs. 3-set possibilities presents.

It's the non-Slam events where I think the women come up short and event promotors, sponsors and fans reflect that in their (lack of) willingness to pay.

And let's not even talk about the difference between DC and FedCup. I don't think anyone (WTA, players or fans) would be too terribly disappointed if FedCup just went away. DC, in the midst of a revival, is enjoying monumental success. Top players are playing again (yes, Roger's out...but Andre is in this week) and last year's finals sell-out crowds in Spain were rewarded with some unbelievable tennis.

Despite all that, tennis is the one professional sport...where this debate even stands a chance. It is a testament to the sport's overall popularity...with both genders...to both play and watch.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 12:33 PM
Interesting analysis Herr Braasch.

The facts are the same that the Davis Cup does have prestige and for whatever reasons is a consistently successful team competiton even with the hiccups. If the player union and the admins can't get it right for Fed Cup they are both to blame.

It doesn't matter how good the play is, if there are massive amounts of empty sets for the end of season finale it's not good either way.

It's not the point about them always having more money that has been the way for the vast majority of sports even before professionalism.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 12:34 PM
Despite all that, tennis is the one professional sport...where this debate even stands a chance. It is a testament to the sport's overall popularity...with both genders...to both play and watch.

Exactly. Just for the Canadian Open, attendance (for Montreal) the last couple of years are BETTER for women than they are for men - even with the fact that the mens are all forced to play and that it's a 64 draw instead of 56.

Womens' tennis IS popular. Some people think it sucks, but it doesn't change the fact that it's extremely popular.

KarstenBraasch#1
03-02-2005, 12:38 PM
It doesn't matter how good the play is, if there are massive amounts of empty sets for the end of season finale it's not good either way.
In a stadium of 20,000 it's more likely to have empty seats than in a stadium of 8,000.
The women's event had better weather too.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 12:40 PM
Conjonctures.

Others sports, irrelevant.

WTA events, irrelevant.

Davis Cup and Fed Cup, irrelevant.

End of year champs, irrelevant.

We don't need to prove anything. They're selling a combined event. When you pay, you pay to see men AND women. And when you watch tv, sometimes it's men, sometimes it's women. There could be thousands of people watching the end of a mens match because they're waiting for a womens match to start.

All your points are irrelevant and have been from the beginning. How about backing up some of your claims with some substance. I don't care if you have a different view, but at least try and explain it with something resembling an argument.

How is DC and Fed Cup irrelevant? Is it because you can't counteract the points? Considering all tennis events are relevant to the amount of revenue bought into the game through the other things mentioned previously, then how are empty seats at the TMC irrelevant? Explain yourself if you can.

Yes, you do need to prove that they deserve it. It's a basic economic argument and I said it's up to the WTA and Captain Crusader (yourself) to justify that they are able to generate the same amount of money as the guys as I said in my first post. If you were arguing for this side in a negotiation I'd laugh at you.

Actually if I go to a Slam I watch the matches I want to watch, no one tells me to watch a women's match.

Could be and would be's mean nothing. It's actually very easy for them to produce the figures at Slams. Different companies are aligned with theATP and others with the WTA. I don't see Sanex in the ATP market and they know the figures, but haven't got the bottle to publish them.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 12:41 PM
In a stadium of 20,000 it's more likely to have empty seats than in a stadium of 8,000.
The women's event had better weather too.

Who's fault is that with the choice of stadium and the organisation? If it was that good, then they'd fill it.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 12:46 PM
All your points are irrelevant and have been from the beginning. How about backing up some of your claims with some substance. I don't care if you have a different view, but at least try and explain it with something resembling an argument.

How is DC and Fed Cup irrelevant? Is it because you can't counteract the points? Considering all tennis events are relevant to the amount of revenue bought into the game through the other things mentioned previously, then how are empty seats at the TMC irrelevant? Explain yourself if you can.

Yes, you do need to prove that they deserve it. It's a basic economic argument and I said it's up to the WTA and Captain Crusader (yourself) to justify that they are able to generate the same amount of money as the guys as I said in my first post. If you were arguing for this side in a negotiation I'd laugh at you.

Actually if I go to a Slam I watch the matches I want to watch, no one tells me to watch a women's match.

Could be and would be's mean nothing. It's actually very easy for them to produce the figures at Slams. Different companies are aligned with theATP and others with the WTA. I don't see Sanex in the ATP market and they know the figures, but haven't got the bottle to publish them.

Well I meant, all your points are irrelevant for equal price money at Slams, my apologies if people discuss for equal price money in general.

Slams are selling a combined event, you can't prove how much each tour generates. When you pay, you pay to see men AND women. It doesn't matter if you don't go see women or not. You still have paid for them.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 12:46 PM
Despite all that, tennis is the one professional sport...where this debate even stands a chance. It is a testament to the sport's overall popularity...with both genders...to both play and watch.

The way some people are crying at the moment that the women are destitute. They are not and won't be, but they don't deserve the same money for the reasons stated.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 12:49 PM
Well I meant, all your points are irrelevant for equal price money at Slams, my apologies if people discuss for equal price money in general.

Slams are selling a combined event, you can't prove how much each tour generates. When you pay, you pay to see men AND women. It doesn't matter if you don't go see women or not. You still have paid for them.

You don't have much of a clue about this. I explained how it can be done, how much revenue from the various sponsors has been put into the Slams. It's not that difficult to find out at all and they know the figures and how much of a percentage it is of the product, but keep that tunnel vision going.

You are changing your tune now to equal money in the Slams, where that wasn't the case earlier.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 12:51 PM
The way some people are crying at the moment that the women are destitute. They are not and won't be, but they don't deserve the same money for the reasons stated.

To me it's not even a question of whether they deserve equal price money or not. It's just very basic common sense (that Wimbledon and the French Open don't have). If you pay men and women almost the same, then why not paying women and men exactly the same? The difference, I repeat it for the 100 times, has nothing, but nothing to do with economic. It's about how Wimbledon and the French Open feel about womens tennis.

I don't even care that much about equal price money, I just care about common sense.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 12:55 PM
You don't have much of a clue about this. I explained how it can be done, how much revenue from the various sponsors has been put into the Slams. It's not that difficult to find out at all and they know the figures and how much of a percentage it is of the product, but keep that tunnel vision going.

You are changing your tune now to equal money in the Slams, where that wasn't the case earlier.

I'm not changing my tune, I was only and always only referring to Slams, it's pointless to discuss about equal price money for non Slam events because the ATP and the WTA are 2 different organisations. I mentionned that a couple of days ago on wtaworld. The debate for equal price money outside Slams is pointless.

It's a combined events. So whatever they sell, they sell it for both events. :rolleyes: When they sell ticket, they sell tickets for men and women. When they sell tv coverage, they sell men and womens matches.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 12:58 PM
To me it's not even a question of whether they deserve equal price money or not. It's just very basic common sense (that Wimbledon and the French Open don't have).

Did you know that RG had a womens only QF day? It stunk and was a very bad day finance wise for the tournament and they'll never do that.

Then there was the time when they played all the quarter finals on Lenglen instead of Chartier. Why is that? Do you think they would have put the guys out there all of their matches?

If you pay men and women almost the same, then why not paying women and men exactly the same? The difference, I repeat it for the 100 times, has nothing, but nothing to do with economic. It's about how Wimbledon and the French Open feel about womens tennis.

You don't get it the money from the ATP and WTA doesn't just go the tour and their money helps Slams together with the ITF. The ATP being a richer organisation than the WTA and have clearly shown this in that they bring in more overall revenue than the WTA to the Slams, if it wasn't the case, why wouldn't the WTA publicise it?

I don't even care that much about equal price money, I just care about common sense.

How about using some when you are trying to discuss this subject.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 01:03 PM
I'm not changing my tune, I was only and always only referring to Slams, it's pointless to discuss about equal price money for non Slam events because the ATP and the WTA are 2 different organisations. I mentionned that a couple of days ago on wtaworld. The debate for equal price money outside Slams is pointless.

It's a combined events. So whatever they sell, they sell it for both events. :rolleyes: When they sell ticket, they sell tickets for men and women. When they sell tv coverage, they sell men and womens matches.

You are changing the tune to suit your particular argument. So that's the informed opinion cause it's a combined event they deserve the same cash. All this without even thinking of all the other factors. I am glad you are not an official trying to campaign for better pay for the WTA.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 01:06 PM
You are changing the tune to suit your particular argument. So that's the informed opinion cause it's a combined event they deserve the same cash. All this without even thinking of all the other factors. I am glad you are not an official trying to campaign for better pay for the WTA.

How am I changing my tune :confused: My opinion never changed about anything.

Yes, it's my opinion that because it's a combined event AND that both sports are very popular (mens and womens tennis), they deserve the same cash. There is nothing to justify a small difference.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 01:09 PM
Did you know that RG had a womens only QF day? It stunk and was a very bad day finance wise for the tournament and they'll never do that.

Then there was the time when they played all the quarter finals on Lenglen instead of Chartier. Why is that? Do you think they would have put the guys out there all of their matches?

You don't get it the money from the ATP and WTA doesn't just go the tour and their money helps Slams together with the ITF. The ATP being a richer organisation than the WTA and have clearly shown this in that they bring in more overall revenue than the WTA to the Slams, if it wasn't the case, why wouldn't the WTA publicise it?

How about using some when you are trying to discuss this subject.

Yes, I do remember about all 1/4F being on Lenglen (and court 1 before Lenglen was built), it wasn't always sold out, true.

And even if the ATP brings more money, there is nothing to justify the little difference between price money for both events.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 01:12 PM
How am I changing my tune :confused: My opinion never changed about anything.

Yes, it's my opinion that because it's a combined event AND that both sports are very popular (mens and womens tennis), they deserve the same cash. There is nothing to justify a small difference.

I mean until recently you never specified the difference between Slams and the respective tours.

It has no base at all. They don't deserve the same cash and no matter how many times I explain it, how and why these other factors effect the level of prizemoney, but you choose to ignore that.

Go to a tournament in Europe. The Italian Open for the men gets very good crowd, the women's event struggles even though they are both prestigious events. I could on, but won't.

Not every place in the world has the same viewing trends as North America or can't you grasp that?

jtipson
03-02-2005, 01:12 PM
Wimbledon still has a women's only quarter-final (and semi-final for that matter) day.

I guess tickets still sell, because a) quite a lot of people who go to Wimby are not particularly interested in tennis anyway; b) fans get no choice as to what they get from the ballot, and c) those that do get those days are praying for the rain so that they get to see some men's matches ;)

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 01:15 PM
Yes, I do remember about all 1/4F being on Lenglen (and court 1 before Lenglen was built), it wasn't always sold out, true.


That's a snub to the women and that is fairly clear why. Unless Mauresmo is playing or someone else big. At RG women's tennis is definitely not the one that the majority of people go and see.

And even if the ATP brings more money, there is nothing to justify the little difference between price money for both events.

It's not an if about it. They bring in more revenue and women's sport has always been poorer than the men's. They don't get the same amount of crowds, generate the overall interest, don't get as many sponsors, TV deals and this applies to tennis as well. Even if you are so deluded that you can't see this.

SanTaureau Fan
03-02-2005, 01:25 PM
It has no base at all. They don't deserve the same cash and no matter how many times I explain it, how and why these other factors effect the level of prizemoney, but you choose to ignore that.


I ignore it because I don't care about whether women deserve less money or not. The difference in price money between both events is so small that if the French Open or Wimbledon would have any brain, they would give equal price money.

Slams are the 4 important tournaments of the year. It's a combined events, both being extremely popular. The price money is almost the same. Just make things simple (so that way no one would waste energy trying to figure out if men really generate more money than women), and give them equal price money. It doesn't hurt anyone to give slightly more money to women; it just makes things infinitely more simple.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 01:29 PM
Yes right, the world doesn't work like that. RG and Wimbledon have their reasons for not giving the same money and they won't change unless they see a good reason to do so. Nothing you have said could even come close to a good reason for them to change.

It's not a question of whether it's simple. The figures are there and the only reason you say it's a waste of money is because your theory would be blown out of the water if released.

PaulieM
03-02-2005, 01:32 PM
ESPN is not the world.
no it's not the world but it is a partial indicator of what people are paying attention to, as far as tennis viewing in the U.S.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 01:36 PM
no it's not the world but it is a partial indicator of what people are paying attention to, as far as tennis viewing in the U.S.

The average American coverage of tennis so insular in that they have tape delay and just show Americans. So how is that an indicator of how strong tennis is globally.

Yes, it's a global sport and not just an American sport. So WTA is popular in the US and less so in Europe and Australasia, that isn't exactly news.

PaulieM
03-02-2005, 01:48 PM
i never claimed that it espn was representative of the global view of tennis but clearly the U.S at the end of the post didn't mean anything to you. I was simply pointing it out as a factor to consider, i didn't say that that was the sole reason why people should get equal prize money.

Action Jackson
03-02-2005, 01:51 PM
It's an important place in the tennis world that is obvious, but my comment was just obvious just because one trend happens there doesn't mean it's indicative everywhere.

PaulieM
03-02-2005, 03:32 PM
well then that's one thing we agree on, i wasn't saying that it was the all important deciding factor on the issue. i recognize that a lot of the world prefers mens tennis, and i think rightfully so. but i still think that everyone deserves equal pay especially when it's a measly percentage that they are fighting over. women's tennis helps the sport and in this day and age it's better to just do the PC thing and give them the same amount of money at the slams, especially when some of the slams do it, it should either be all of them or none of them.

adeegee
03-02-2005, 05:11 PM
can i just add.....do women soccer players deserve the same pay as male soccer players, just because we no longer live in a sexist society? This being despite the fact that mens matches in the English Premier League get attendances of about 50000, and womens matches get about 200 if they're lucky. The men are also clearly better than the women, but seeing as it is sexist should we just increase wages of the women?